TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h his wife Laxmibai (mother of the Appellants), two sons (appellants 1 and 2) and a daughter. After the death of Ranganath Bhandare, the daughter got married in 1984 and started living separately. Appellant No. 2 got married in 1985 and shifted to Sangli in connection with his employment in the beginning of 1986. Appellant No. 1 was away at Pune in connection with his employment. Thus Appellants'mother Laxmibai who was aged and suffering from several complaints was staying alone in the said property from the middle of 1986. The second Respondent (Chhaya) was engaged in or about the year 1985 as a servant to look after Laxmibai and was allowed to reside in one room as a licensee without any rent. In November 1986, Laxmibai died. The second Respondent requested the Appellant for some time to vacate the room stating that she would leave as soon as she got some alternative accommodation. As second Respondent had looked after their mother and their property, the Appellants agreed for her continuing as licensee for some time. She did not however vacate. Taking advantage of the fact that the owners were not around, she and the first Respondent (Sadhu) with whom she had a 'living-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents had failed to prove that they were residing in the suit premises as tenants from February, 1982 on a monthly rent of ` 25 or that they were paying the rent at the rate of ` 60/- per month from the year 1988. The trial court also held that the second Respondent was in possession of the two rooms as a licensee with the permission of Lakshmibai and had continued in occupation as gratuitous licensee and was not a tenant; and that the first Respondent had not trespassed or forcibly occupied the second room but was residing in the suit portions with the licensee (second Respondent) as her husband. As the Respondents were licensees and the license had been revoked, the trial court held that the Appellants were entitled to possession of the suit portions. Consequently, RCS No. 278/1993 for possession filed by the Appellants was decreed and the Respondents were directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit portions within sixty days. The trial court also directed a separate enquiry regarding damages and mesne profits. As the claim for tenancy was rejected, but as Respondents were in occupation of two rooms, the trial court decreed RCS No. 114/1993 filed by first Respondent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate court reverses the findings of fact recorded by the trial court by placing the burden of proof wrongly on the Plaintiffs and then holding that the Plaintiffs did not discharge such burden; or if its decision is based on evidence which is irrelevant or inadmissible; or if its decision discards material and relevant evidence, or is based on surmises and conjectures; or if it bases its decision on wrong inferences drawn about the legal effect of the documents exhibited; and if grave injustice occurs in such a case on account of High Court missing the real substantial question of law arising in the appeal and erroneously proceeds on the basis that the matter does not involve any question of law and summarily dismisses the second appeal filed by the Appellant? In this context we may remember that the legal effect of proved facts and documents is a question of law. (See Dhanna Mal v. Rai Bahadur Lala Moti Sagar AIR 1927 P.C. 102 and Gujarat Ginning Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Motilal Hirabhai Spinning and Manuacturing Company Ltd.: AIR 1936 PC 77. In such cases, if the circumstances so warranted, this Court may interfere in an appeal by special leave under Article 136. Let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are the owners of the Premises No. 289 (Schedule A property), Gandhi Chowk, Vita. The suit property earlier belonged to Ranganath Bhandare (father of Appellants) who died in the year 1979. Dnyaneshwar (the first Appellant) was employed in Pune and was away from Vita for several years. Lata, the sister of Appellants got married and left the premises in the year 1984. Mukund, the second Appellant got married in 1985 and left Vita and shifted to Sangli in the first half of 1986. Appellants'mother Laxmibai, who was staying alone, died in November, 1986. Property bearing No. 289 consists of a ground floor and first floor. Two rooms described in Schedules B C to the plaint were in the possession of the second Respondent Chhaya and the first Respondent Sadhu. There was no lease deed or tenancy agreement evidencing tenancy, nor were any receipts to show payment of any rent. It is in this background, that the evidence was required to be examined. 12. Laxmibai was an old lady. The second Appellant, who was staying with his aged mother in 1985, was obviously not able to look after her. In the beginning of 1986, he left Vita in connection with his employment. Laxmibai was all alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (B C schedule properties) or that they were paying any rent to the owners of the property. As it was an admitted position that there was no document evidencing the tenancy or evidencing payment of any rent, the trial court also placed the burden upon the Defendants to prove that they were residing in the premises as tenants. The trial court believed the evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of the neighbour (S.B. Bhandare) (PW2), that Laxmibai was ailing and to look after her and to look after the house, Laxmibai had engaged the second Respondent as a maid servant and given her a place to stay free of cost as licensee and that the first Respondent was also staying with her and neither of them had ever paid any rent to Appellants or Laxmibai. 15. The trial court considered the following documentary evidence produced by the Respondents to establish that they were the tenants: (a) Assessment Register extracts (Ex. 61 and Ex. 62); (b) Tax paid receipts (Ex. 63, Exs. 67 to 72); (c) Bank cash deposit challan counter foils (Ex. 64 to Ex. 66); (d) Electoral roll for 1991 (Ex. 74); (e) Notices through counsel dated 9.10.1992 and 15.6.1993 (Ex. 75 Ex.77) with acknowledgments (Ex. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 67 to 72 are the tax receipts issued by the Vita Municipality produced by first Respondent which showed that the taxes for the period 1989-90 up to 1992-1993 were paid in the name of the registered owner Ranganath Bhandare. The first appellate court held that the Appellant has not explained these receipts. But if the Respondents were licensees in the premises, looking after Laxmibai and the premises, there is nothing strange in the Appellants who were not living at Vita, to send the tax amount through Respondents, for payment to the Municipal authorities. It is possible that first Respondent was planning from 1988-89 onwards to create some kind of evidence to claim tenancy and had therefore retained the tax receipts. What is significant is that these receipts do not show that the amounts paid as taxes were paid by the first Respondent were from his personal funds. Further the case of the first Respondent is that he was a tenant from 1982 to 1988 paying ` 25/- p.m. and thereafter `60/- per month. It is not the case of the Respondents that in addition to rent, they were required to pay the municipal taxes and that they were therefore paying the municipal taxes. If payment of taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were living outside Vita, the first Respondent used to deposit rent in the bank account of the first Appellant with Bank of Karad. The first appellate court held the fact that the amounts were deposited to first Appellant's account showed that the Appellants had given the account number to first Respondent and inferred that the said amounts might have been deposited towards rent. 21. Appellants have given satisfactory explanation. They submitted that the bank account was a non-functional and non-operated account at Vita and as no notice of deposit was given, they were unaware of the deposits. They submitted that Bank of Karad went into liquidation and they therefore did not even have any record of these payments. They argued that as the second Respondent was looking after Laxmibai and as Respondents were also looking after the premises, the Respondents would have come to know about the bank account of the first Appellant and that first Respondent, being aware that one day or the other, the owners will take action to evict them, had deposited the said amounts to create some kind of evidence. It should also be noted that the Respondents did not send any communication infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant in RCS No. 114/1993 and by the Appellants in RCS No. 278/1993. In view of the pending litigation, non issue of the replies to the notices cannot be treated as an admission of the averments in the notices. Re: Application for fixation of standard rent 25. The first Respondent filed a petition for fixation of standard rent in the year 1992 wherein he had claimed to be the tenant. The first appellate court held that as this was not controverted, the allegations therein should be true. 26. The fact that the first Respondent filed an application for determination of the standard rent is not disputed. But it is also not in dispute that the Appellants filed a counter in the said proceedings wherein they clearly stated that the first Respondent had no connection with the property and the premises was not given to him on rent or on any other understanding and that the first Respondent was falsely claiming tenancy with the help of second Respondent. It may be mentioned that the said petition for fixation of standard rent was not pursued by the first Respondent and ultimately it was dismissed for no prosecution on the ground that the first Respondent had failed to prosecute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
