PESTONJI S MERCHANT Vs. RAGHUNATHSING R RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 27.2.1984 passed by the III Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No.363/1981. That appeal was filed by the original tenant Raghunathsing challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, dated 12.2.1981, in Civil Suit No.541/1978. That Civil Suit was filed by the present petitioners claiming therein that they are owners of House No.468, Kirkee, and that the original respondent No.1 was the tenant of the suit house. The landlords sought a decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds including the one that he has erected a permanent structure in the suit premises and that he is profiteering by subletting the premises to defendants 2 to 6. The trial Court recorded findings in favour of the landlords on the grounds of erecting permanent construction and profiteering and decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the tenant, however, the appellate court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and allowed the appeal. As a result, the suit filed by the landlords stood dismissed. It is this judgment of the appellate Court which the landlords have challenged in this petition.

(2.) PERUSAL of the judgment of the appellate Court shows that the appellate Court has reversed the finding on the question of permanent construction on the ground that there is no evidence led by the landlords to show that the alleged construction which was put up by the tenant was of permanent nature. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, though did not dispute that there is no evidence led by the landlords to establish the nature of the construction raised by the tenant, contended that an inference could have been drawn by the appellate Court from the intention of the tenant in putting up the construction. It is pertinent to note here that the tenant had stated in his evidence that he had put up a cattle shed in the open ground but he demolished the same as soon as the landlords objected to it. In my opinion, no such inference, as suggested by the learned counsel, could have been drawn by the appellate Court from the alleged intention of the tenant. I do not find any error in the judgment of the appellate court in setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court after finding that there is no evidence led by the landlords to show that the construction raised by the tenant was of a permanent nature.

(3.) IN the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.