Dinkar Sridhar Tamhankar vs Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi

Dinkar Sridhar Tamhankar ....Appellant VERSUS

Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In spite of due service of notice on the respondent,

the respondent has failed to appear before us for the

purpose of contesting the appeal.

3. By the impugned order, a learned Single Judge of

the High Court has allowed a review application and

modified the decree for possession, which was

passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of 2

the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court,

Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this order allowing the

application for review, a Special Leave Petition was

filed in this Court, which on grant of leave, was

heard in presence of the learned counsel for the

appellant.

5. In our view, the High Court was not justified in

interfering with the concurrent orders of the Courts

below in the exercise of its power under Article 227

of the Constitution.

6. It is not in dispute that the decree for eviction on

the ground of bona fide requirement was passed in

favour of the landlord-appellant by the Small

Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court

in revision. It is an admitted fact that an

undertaking was filed by the respondent

unequivocally binding himself to vacate the

premises in question on or before 31st of December,

2008.

3

7. Such being the position, it was not permissible for

the High Court to entertain the review application

and modify the decree for eviction passed on the

ground of bona fide requirement as we find that

there was no error apparent on the face of the

record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1

of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such

review petition.

8. That being the position, we set aside the impugned

order and restore the order passed by the High

Court in revision, which affirmed the order of the

Small Causes Court, Pune directing eviction of the

respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.

There will be no order as to costs.

..........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .........................J. July 14, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]