Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 304
2002(2) Supreme 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Smt. Padmavati Devadatta Kamat & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Shri Vijaykumar Narayan Mehandale & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7684 of 1995
Decided on 4-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.P. Bhat, Sr. Advocates, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocate.
Petitioner-in-Person for R.P. (C) No. D17705/2001.
For the Respondent : A.S. Bhasme, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The concurrent finding of three Courts below that appellants have acquired an alternate accommodation needs no interference in appeal by Apex Court.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave-Eviction Petition on ground that landlords need the premises for their own use and occupation-Decreed by Courts below-Concurrent finding that tenant has acquired alternate accommodation-Whether can be interfered in appeal by special leave?-(No)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : We notice that the three courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the accommodation acquired in the name of Sunil was for the benefit of the entire family and the said accommodation was a suitable alternate accommodation. Therefore, the respondent-landlords were entitled for possession of the suit schedule premises for their own use and occupation. In this regard, it may be of some relevance to refer to the finding of the learned Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 174/80 wherein he has held:
"Admittedly deceased Devadatta was tenant in the suit premises prior to purchase by plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that he resided upto 1980 in the suit premises as tenant. Dinesh married in 1989 and his wife is serving in BMC. There is no any evidence produced by the defendants like voter list or ration card etc. to show that Dinesh Kamat was residing in the suit premises during 1969. Dinesh Kamat is running the business of astrology and earning money thereby. He is also Union Leader of Organisation." (Para 5)
This plea of the trial court has been accepted both by the appellate court as well as writ court and this being a finding on question of fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same, more so when the appellant in person, who argued this appeal in the second round, was unable to point out with reference to records how this finding is either incorrect or perverse. Apart from making certain general observations as to his present status and hardship that he may suffer if eviction is ordered, this appellant was not able to point out how respondents were not entitled to the eviction sought for by them. As stated above, after the arguments concluded, we had given an opportunity to the appellant who argued this appeal to file written submissions within four weeks from that date which, as stated above, he has filed and we have considered the same. In the said written submissions except stating that he has sufficient material to show that he continues to reside in the suit premises, he has not established how the findings of the courts below are erroneous. We do not think at this belated stage he should be permitted to produce any fresh documents that is even assuming he has some such documents and they are relevant. Having considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants both oral and written and having perused the records, we find no merit in this case. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. (Paras 6 to 9)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave-Withdrawn on time being granted to vacate the premises-Later challenged in review petition-Permitted as a special case as appellant wanted to argue in person. (Paras 1 & 2)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-Before we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits, we must record what had transpired on 11th September, 2001 for a complete narration of the facts involved in this case. In this appeal, leave was granted as far back as in the year 1995 and the matter was posted for final hearing on 11th September, 2001 on which date Shri Ramesh P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, had argued the matter elaborately. He challenged the findings of the courts below that the appellants have acquired an alternate accommodation on the ground that the same was not based on material on record among other contentions. After hearing Shri Bhatt for the appellants and Shri V. N. Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the respondents and perusing the records, we expressed our view that we were not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and were intending to dismiss the appeal. Taking that into consideration, the eviction proceedings were initiated as far back as in the year 1980 and nearly 20 years had passed and the respondent-landlords were unable to get possession of the property, we were not inclined to grant any long period for the appellants to vacate the premises. At this stage, Shri Bhatt made a fervent appeal to the Court that if the appellants were to be dispossessed without sufficient time they will be put to a great hardship since immediate alternate accommodation will not be available to them. Though we were inclined to grant some short time, on a repeated plea made by Shri Bhatt, Shri Ganpule learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly acceded to the request of the appellants to grant one year s time provided, of course, the appeal in question was withdrawn. Obviously considering this offer as fair and advantageous to the appellants, Shri Bhatt accepted the same and made a submission to the Court that he will be withdrawing the appeal provided one year s time was granted to his client to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the order was passed dismissing the appeal as withdrawn and granting an year s time to vacate the premises on the appellants filing an undertaking in the usual terms before the Registry of this Court.
2. After the said order was passed, certain applications were filed before this Court. One of them was on behalf of the appellants filed through the 4th appellant in which certain allegations were made against the counsel who represented the appellants and sought their discharge. Simultaneously, an application was also filed by the counsel on record for the appellants seeking their discharge from the case in view of the allegations made against them by the appellants. Those applications have since been disposed of by us and the counsel who appeared for the appellants have been discharged on their request without accepting the allegations made against them. Those applications apart, a review petition was also filed seeking the review of the order dated 11th September, 2001 on the ground that they were not properly represented by their counsel and withdrawal of the appeal was without instructions from them. Though in the normal course grounds raised in the review petition would not have been considered as sufficient grounds to entertain a review petition, still with a view to grant an opportunity to the petitioner who wanted to argue the case himself, as an exceptional case, we decided to allow the review petition and heard the 4th appellant Dinesh Devadatta Kamat on merits of the case at length. We also permitted the said appellant to file written submissions within four weeks which he has done. We have heard the arguments of the said appellant and perused the written submissions.
3. The appellant s family took a suit schedule premises on rent some time prior to the year 1976. On 12.12.1977, the respondent-landlords served a notice on the original tenant seeking the vacation of the suit premises, in
