[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.387 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5239 OF 1990 WITH CIVIL APPLN.NO.343 OF 2008 IN LPA NO.387 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.5239 OF 1990 Shri.Badrinarayan Jaganath Sarada and ors. ..Appellants/ Vs. Shri.Vithal Bansi Bankar and Ors. ..Respondents .... P.B.Shah for Appellants V.S.Gokhale for Respondents .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated [-2-] 8.7.2008 in Writ Petition No.4286 of 1991, whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the concurrent view taken by the two Courts below regarding the decree of eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground that he had acquired alternate suitable accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. 3. The appellant was the tenant of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of the premises consisting of two room at Ghorpade Peth, Pune. The learned Single Judge as well as the learned Small Causes Judge held that the appellant had acquired a bungalow in Sant Dnyaneshwar Housing Co-operative Society in the year 1976 and he was put in possession of the said bungalow and hence, suit came to be decided against the appellant. The said order was confirmed in appeal as well as by the learned Single Judge. 4. It is seen that the appellant has admitted that he had acquired a bungalow in Co-operative Housing Society in the year 1976 and that he was put in possession of the said bungalow. The appellant has [-3-] also deposed in his evidence that he purchased the bungalow for Rs.1,05,000/- in the year 1976. This fact is reinforced from the evidence such as the Invitation Card of Performance of "Wastushanti" issued by the appellant-tenant. However, the case of the appellant is that though the said bungalow was acquired by him in the year 1976, however, on account of dispute with the owner of the bungalow, the sale transaction was cancelled in the year 1980 and thereafter, the appellant vacated the said bungalow and handed back the possession to the original owner. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a document to show that the transaction relating to the bungalow was cancelled in the year 1980. The said document i.e. cancellation deed dated 5.3.1998 had not been considered by both the Courts below as well as the learned Single Judge. However, it is seen that the said document was not proved and exhibited during the trial. The appellant did not examine any member of the Saint Dnyaneshwar Co-Operative Housing Society to substantiate his stand that he had cancelled the [-4-] transaction of the bungalow and he had vacated and handed over the possession back to the owner. Even after going through the deposition of the appellant at the most, it can be said that the appellant has made reference to the cancellation of transaction by producing a document, however, the contents of the said document have not been proved by the appellant. Obviously, for this reason, the document has not been exhibited by the trial Court. Moreover, even the Roznama does not support the stand of the appellant that the document has been proved and exhibited by the appellant. The appellant is not in a position to point out that the said document has been duly proved or the same can be said to be admitted in evidence. 6. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that no fault can be found with the Courts below for not taking the said document into consideration. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that in the absence of any evidence, it would follow that the appellant continued to be in possession of the said bungalow during the relevant period and more so, on and after institution of the suit in September, 1984. In [-5-] view of the evidence on record, the conclusion that the appellant has acquired suitable accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Act, is inevitable. We find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. LPA is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]