D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is landlords revision under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under :- the revisionist/landlord filed a suit for eviction against Devchandbhai Jamnadas, who died during pendency of the suit. Suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, etc. was filed on variety of grounds. One ground seeking eviction was that the tenant was in arrears of rent for morethan six months, which he failed to pay within a month of service of notice of demand. The second was that the demised premises was reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. The third was that the defendant committed breach of terms of tenancy and acted contrary to the provisions of sec. 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act. During pendency of the suit, the plaint was got amended and additional ground of eviction was introduced, namely, the tenant, after coming into force of the Act, had built or acquired vacant possession of suitable residence.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, denying all these allegations. Dispute of standard rent was also raised, so also the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties.

( 4 ) THE trial Court negatived the landlords case that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, which he failed to pay within a month of service of notice of demand. The trial Court further negatived the landlords plea that the disputed premises was required by him for his personal use and occupation. The trial Court further found that the tenant did not commit any act contrary to sec. 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act. It further found that the tenants had not acquired alternative suitable accommodation for their residence. Standard rent was fixed at Rs. 35=00 per month. Plea of non-joinder raised by the defendants was negatived. With these findings, the suit was dismissed.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, the landlord preferred appeal, which too was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. The two judgments have been examined. The contention of Ms. Kalpana J. Brahmbhatt for the respondent has been that it is a case of concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below, which is neither illegal nor perverse, hence interference in revision is not called for. She also argued that it is not proved that the tenants have shifted to the alternative accommodation, nor it is proved that all the tenants, after the demise of the tenant-in-chief, have built accommodation for their residence. In view of this, it was argued that the revision is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 6 (a) and also finding of the appellate Court on this issue. He has, however, not challenged the findings of the two courts below regarding other issues. Consequently, the only point for determination in this revision is, whether concurrent findings of the two courts below on Issue no. 6 (a) require any interference or not ? It is incorrect to say that, in every case, where there is a concurrent finding recorded by the two courts below, revisional interference is absolutely barred. If it is found that, the findings in the nature of concurrent findings have been illegally recorded or such findings are perverse, in that case, revisional interference is called for.

( 8 ) THE requirement of sec. 13 (1) (l) is that, the landlord shall be entitle to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, after coming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a suitable residence. It is under this ground that eviction of the tenants wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document