I am a landlord and i have filed writ petition in 2010 which was accepted by Bombaby High court. The respondent is claiming to be tenant but he doesnt have documentary evidence. I dont get any updates from the lawyer about the case however i have checked the bombay high court website which has listed the dates . I want to tell my lawyer about the past judgement given by the court on the similiar case here is the reference case to understand my petition . I would like to know whats the procedure to get updates from my lawyer about my writ petition case and would the court consider the past judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 1988
1. Rajaram Hiralal Bhoi
since deceased through his L.R's
1A. Smt. Gopabai Rajaram Bhoi
Age 65 yrs., Occ. Household.
1B. Tukaram Rajaram Bhoi
Age 26 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
1C. Vijay Rajaram Bhoi
Age 28 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
1D. Datta Rajaram Bhoi
Age 30 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
1E. Lalu Rajaram Bhoi
Age 32 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
1F. Smt. Nagarbai Tuljaram Bhoi
Age 45 yrs. Occ. household.
1G. Smt. Padabai Hanmant Bhoi
Age 40 yrs. Occ. household.
1H. Smt. Rukminibai Dagadu Bhoi
Age 38 yrs. Occ. household.
1I. Kanta Machindra Bhoi
Age 27 yrs. Occ. household.
All are residing at, village Nandur,
Taluka North Solapur, District -Solapur.
2. Manik Tatyaba Madkar
since deceased through his L.R's
2A. Ambubai Manik Madkar
Age 65 yrs. Occ. household.
2B. Arun Manik Madkar
Age 47 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
2C. Ashok Manik Madkar
Age 40 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
2D. Vasant Manik Madkar
2 wp3856.88j
Age 38 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
2E. Anil Manik Madkar
Age 35 yrs. Occ. agriculture.
All are residing at, village Nandur,
taluka- North Solapur, District- Solapur. ....Petitioners. Vs.
1. Chintaman Waman Sathe
since deceased through his L.R's
1A. Prakash Chintaman Sathe
1B. Sou. Sumedha Ravindra Bhide,
All 1A & 1B are residing at
Village Nandur, Tal. North Solapur,
Dist. Solapur.
2. Mukund Raghunath Sathe,
since deceased though his L.R's
2A. Smt. Ujwala Mukund Sathe,
2B. Deepak Mukund Sathe,
2C. Pranoti Mukund Sathe,
All 2A to 2 C are residing at Village
Nandur, Tal. North Solapur,
Dist. Solapur. . ....Respondents Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Akshay Shinde i/b. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1(C to I) and 2(A to C).
CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J
DATED:- JANUARY 6, 2012
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Sakhare, Advocate for Petitioners and Shri Shinde Advocate for Respondents.
3 wp3856.88j
2. Petitioners are original Applicants in Tenancy Case No. 108 of 1984 filed before the Additional Tahasildar and ALT, South Solapur under Section 70(b) of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948. The Petitioners had earlier filed a similar application in the year 1973 which was withdrawn by them. There were also proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in which Magistrate had held that the Respondents landlords were entitled to physical possession. That Suit was also filed in which the Petitioners were unable to prove their physical possession and get injunction. The Petitioners examined themselves and two other witnesses and did not produce any other documentary evidence in the form of a tenancy agreement or any rent receipt. In the cross examination the Petitioners admitted that no rent receipts were available with them. They also admitted that earlier application under section 70(b) was unconditionally withdrawn.
3. By Judgment and Order dated 28/6/1984, the learned Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. South Solapur allowed the Tenancy Case No. 108 of 1984 and the Petitioners were declared as tenants. The only reason given by the A.L.T. is to be found as under : 4 wp3856.88j
"... It is thus clear throughout the case papers that the applicants are cultivating the suit land and are in possession of the same."
4. Aggrieved by this Order, the Respondents Landlords filed an Appeal under Section 74 of the Act being Tenancy Appeal No. 45 of 1984 which was allowed by the learned Assistant Collector, Solapur by Judgment and Order dated 23/6/1985. The learned Assistant Collector held that virtually no reasons were given by the ALT, there was no proof of alleged tenancy claimed by the Petitioners, no rent receipts. Learned Collector held that in fact two nokarnamas were executed on 16/5/1966 and 5/5/1966 by Gundiba Hiralal Rajput and Manik Tatyaba Madkar respectively which destroyed the case of tenancy. The learned Collector also observed that the earlier application for same relief had been withdrawn.
5. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 234 of 1985 before the MRT, Pune. The learned Designated Member of the MRT, Pune has elaborately discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the Judgment and has upheld the order of the Collector. 5 wp3856.88j
6. Aggrieved by this Order the present Writ Petition has been filed.
7. Mr. Sakhare, Advocate for Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners were in actual possession of the land in question and that there were no rent receipts issued but that did not mean that the Petitioners were not tenants. It was further submitted that merely because nokarnamas were executed, that could not have led to a conclusion that the Petitioners were not tenants. It was also submitted that withdrawal of the earlier application under section 70(b) did not preclude filing of a new application.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Shinde, Advocate for Respondents supported the Judgments of the Additional Collector and MRT, Pune and pointed out that the earlier application for same reliefs was unconditionally withdrawn; that there was not a single rent receipt produced and there was absolutely no documents produced in the form of any tenancy agreement or mutation entries indicating that the Petitioners were tenants. He submitted that since two Courts have recorded concurrent findings of facts this Court should not interfere in its 6 wp3856.88j
extraordinary jurisdiction.
9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In my opinion, the learned Additional Collector was perfectly justified in reversing the Judgment of the A.L.T. From perusal of the Judgment of the A.L.T. it is clear that virtually no reasons were recorded. Entire burden of proving tenancy is on the Petitioners and they have failed to discharge the same. Not a single rent receipt has been produced. No tenancy agreement has been produced. Earlier tenancy application filed by the Petitioners in the year 1973 was unconditionally withdrawn. Thus, the claim of tenancy which was made in the year 1973 having been given up unconditionally, it was not open for the Petitioners to file fresh application in the year 1980. In my opinion such a fresh application is clearly barred. Apart from these, two nokarnamas on record clearly show that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties but relationship was of owner and servant. There is absolutely no explanation about the said nokarnamas and merely because nokarnamas were not executed for the subsequent years it could not have been held that the Petitioners became tenants. The Petitioners have miserably failed in proving their claims of tenancy and the learned Additional Collector and the MRT were justified 7 wp3856.88j
in holding that the Petitioners have failed to prove their claims. There is no perversity in the findings of facts recorded by the Collector as also by the MRT. Learned Member of the MRT has independently reconsidered the oral and documentary evidence on record and I concur with the findings recorded by the Collector and the learned Member of the MRT. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. Hence the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(GIRISH GODBOLE, J)
