1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2007 Saraswati W/o.Daduram Rathod, (Died through her LR’s.) Kishor s/o.Daduram Rathod, and another PETITIONERS VERSUS Shriram s/o.Mohanlal Agrawal (Died through his LR’s.) Kailash s/o.Shriram Agrawal and others. RESPONDENTS Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.B.S.Kudale, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. By consent of the parties, this revision application is finally heard at the stage of admission. 2. By this revision application, the applicants/original defendants in Rent Application no.1992/RC/O/4, before the Rent Controller, Hingoli, have challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Parbhani in Rent Appeal No.9/2006, which was allowed by considering that the applicant is willful defaulter within the meaning of Section 15(1) and (2) of The Hyderabad Rent Control Act, 1954. 2 3. It appears that the predecessor of respondents had filed Eviction Application before the Rent Controller, Hingoli, on the ground of willful default, bonafide requirements, tenant got damages to the property and caused nuisance to the neighbourers. It appears that the said rent application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Hingoli vide his judgment and order dated 27/03/2006. It appears that this judgment and order of the Rent Controller, Hingoli was challenged by the respondents herein by preferring Regular Civil Appeal, i.e. Rent Appeal No.9/2006. It appears that this appeal was decided by the District Judge, Hingoli, vide his judgment and order dated 04/09/2007, wherein, it is held that the applicant/tenant is the willful defaulter within the meaning of Hyderabad Rent Control Act, 1954, but recorded the finding on the point of bonafide requirements of the respondent landlord in the negative. Admittedly, no cross objections are filed by the respondent landlord about the findings recorded against him for bonafide requirements. 4. The small question remains for consideration is that whether the finding recorded about the default by the first appellate court in his judgment while recording the finding on point no.1 for which the observations are in para no.7 of the impugned judgment are perverse. 5. It is not under dispute that the respondents herein have filed Regular Civil Suit no.17/1993 for the recovery of rent during the period 01/03/1989 to 29/02/1992. Regular Civil Suit No.79/1999 was filed for the recovery of rent from 01/03/1992 to 28/02/1995 3 and Regular Civil Suit No.71/1998 was filed for the recovery of rent during the period 01/03/1995 to 01/02/1998, in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. Hingoli. All these suits were decreed by the Civil Judge, J.D. Hingoli. The judgment and decree passed in these civil suits were carried out in 3 regular civil appeals no.41/2001, 91/2001 and 34/2005. During pendancy of this civil revision application, all these 3 appeals were disposed of by common judgement dated 24/08/2009. Initially second appeals were preferred challenging the judgment and decree passed in these 3 civil appeals, but as the second appeal is not maintainable, against the judgment and decree passed in these 3 regular civil appeals, these proceedings were withdrawn, but no civil revision application was filed to challenge the finding in those 3 civil appeals. Thus the fact is clear that so far as the litigation in respect of recovery of the rent from applicant during the period of 01/03/1989 to 01/12/1998, reached its finality, and it is ultimately held by the competent court of law that the applicants herein who are defendants in that suit, as well as the appellants in the regular civil appeals, has not paid the rent during the said period, hence the default. 6. It is observed by the First Appellate Court in para no.7 of the impugned judgment that the first court has not considered about these suits which are filed by the respondents, which were decreed in favour of the respondents herein, wherein title of the landlord was challenged by the tenant and also the rent was not paid to the landlord on that count, and if it is so, it is held by the First Appellate 4 Court that because of the decree is passed in these 3 regular civil suits, the applicants herein are willful defaulter within the meaning of section 15(2) r/w. Section 15(1) of The Hyderabad Rent Control Act, which finding can not be termed as perverse finding. Apart from it, appeals preferred against the judgment and decree passed in these civil suits, were also dismissed, which is not under dispute. If it is so, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the applicants in this civil revision application are willful defaulter in paying the rent, can not be said to be a perverse finding. 7. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence unless it is brought to the notice of this Court that the finding recorded by the Court below, herein the First Appellate Court, is perverse, then the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court need not be opened in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, applicant is unable to brought the fact to the notice of this Court that the finding recorded by the First appellate Court is perverse. In the premise, there are no merits in the application, hence stands rejected. 8. At the request of learned counsel for applicant, 6 months time granted to vacate the suit premises. This leave is granted, subject to applicant to give undertaking to this Court that during this period, the applicant will not create any third party interest in the suit property. (A.V.POTDAR,J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cra191-07