{"id":251296,"date":"2010-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-10T01:01:08","modified_gmt":"2015-09-09T19:31:08","slug":"2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n          CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 145 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    1]   Rajaram Keshav Dhobi,\n         age 66 years, Occu. Pensioner,\n         R\/o Kunde Road, Pawan Chauk,\n         Opp. Wani Mangal Karyalaya,\n         Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                            \n    2]   Nago Keshav Dhobi (dead)             ...APPLICANT\n                 \n                \n                            VERSUS\n\n    Narayan Jairam Marathe,\n    Ae 75 years, Occu. Pensioner,\n    R\/o Kunte Road, Pawan Chauk,\n      \n\n    Opp. Wani Mangal Karyalaya,\n    Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                     ..RESPONDENT.\n   \n\n\n\n                              ...\n    Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for applicant.\n    Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for Sole respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                        WITH\n         CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 190 OF 2009\n\n\n    Narayan Jairam Marathe,\n    Ae 82 years, Occu. Pensioner,\n\n\n\n\n\n    R\/o Kunte Road, Pawan Chauk,\n    Opp. Wani Mangal Karyalaya,\n    Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.                    ...APPLICANT\n\n                       VERSUS\n\n    1]   Rajaram Keshav Dhobi,\n         age 70 years, Occu. Pensioner,\n         R\/o Kunde Road, Pawan Chauk,\n         Opp. Wani Mangal Karyalaya,\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::\n                                         2\n\n         Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n    2]   Nago Keshav Dhobi\n         dead\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n         (Died uring pendency of the suit,\n         no L.Rs. Are brought on record)   ...RESPONDENTS\n\n                        ...\n    Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for applicant\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for respondents\n\n\n\n                                      CORAM :- S.S. SHINDE, J.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n             JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON             : 25th August, 2010\n          JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON\n                      ig                        : 30th September, 2010\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
                Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard<\/p>\n
    finally   with the consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Both    the     Civil    Revision     Applications             are<\/p>\n
    filed, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 11th<\/p>\n
    August,   2009     passed    by    the   Adhoc   District         Judge-1,<\/p>\n
    Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15<\/p>\n
    of 2004. This Court vide order dated 17th February,<\/p>\n
    2010 in Civil Revision Application No. 190 of 2009<\/p>\n
    observed that the revision is to be finally heard, at<\/p>\n
    the stage of admission. Further this Court was pleased<\/p>\n
    to call record and proceedings and accordingly record<\/p>\n
    and proceedings are received from the concerned Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
                The applicant in Civil Revision Application<\/p>\n
    No. 145 of 2009 i.e. Rajaram Keshav Dhobi is original<\/p>\n
    plaintiff    and    the   applicant            Shri     Narayan         Jairam<\/p>\n
    Marathe in Civil Revision Application No. 190 of 2009<\/p>\n
    is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 of<\/p>\n
    1994.     The said suit was filed for possession by the<\/p>\n
    land-lord\/Plaintiffs        on     the     ground           of        personal<\/p>\n
    occupation,      business    and        construction             for      their<\/p>\n
    residence against the defendants, by claiming a decree<\/p>\n
    for   eviction     as   provided       under    Section          13    of     the<\/p>\n
    Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control<\/p>\n
    Act, 1947 (here-in-after called as “the Act”).\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Brief facts as disclosed in the plaint are as<\/p>\n
    under :\n<\/p>\n
                The plaintiffs claimed to be land-lord of the<\/p>\n
    house property T.P. No. 133 within area of boundaries<\/p>\n
    mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint. The western<\/p>\n
    site of premises as described in para No. 1 let                                to<\/p>\n
    the defendant’s father by their uncle at monthly rent<\/p>\n
    of Rs. 5.25\/- as per English Calender.                     The tiled hut<\/p>\n
    on area 16 x 10 erected by the land-lord’s ancestor at<\/p>\n
    the suit premises. (here-in-after called it as “suit<\/p>\n
    premises”).\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
                   The father of defendant died on 14th October,<\/p>\n
    1993    in        house     owned   by       defendant      in     Gurukul         Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative Housing Society at Amalner. The defendant is<\/p>\n
    a member          of said housing society. He has constructed<\/p>\n
    three rooms house and residing along with his family<\/p>\n
    there.       It    was     contended         in   the    plaint         that       the<\/p>\n
    defendant         unnecessary       retained        possession          over       the<\/p>\n
    suit premises. The plaintiff further contended that,<\/p>\n
    suit premises are required for residence and business<\/p>\n
    and for further construction of entire area of T.P.\n<\/p>\n
    No. 133. They have prepared a map and sanctioned it by<\/p>\n
    Municipal         Council,     Amalner.       According        to     plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    they    have       constructed      area      which      was     possessed          by<\/p>\n
    them.    The remaining proposed construction area is in<\/p>\n
    possession         of    the    defendant,         where       they      want       to<\/p>\n
    construct         kitchen,       latrine          etc.     But        could        not<\/p>\n
    construct it. Since the plaintiffs required the suit<\/p>\n
    premises for residence they issued notice dated 15th<\/p>\n
    June,    1994        for       termination         of     tenancy          to      the<\/p>\n
    defendant.          Since       defendant         failed         to       handover<\/p>\n
    possession, the plaintiffs filed Suit bearing Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil Suit No. 159 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.            The defendant resisted the claim by filing<\/p>\n
    written statement (Exh. 14). The plaintiffs bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement      of     suit    premises          was     disputed          by     the<\/p>\n
    defendants.      It     was      also        stated       in        the    written<\/p>\n
    statement     that     the     suit    is     bad    for       non-joinder          of<\/p>\n
    necessary\/certain parties. It was also stated in the<\/p>\n
    written statement, that plaintiffs did file Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil Suit No. 104 of 1974 against the father of the<\/p>\n
    defendant      and   igsaid      suit        came       to        be   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, principle of res-judicata squarely applies<\/p>\n
    to the case, and therefore, Regular Civil Suit No. 159<\/p>\n
    of   1994   being     barred     by     principle            of    res-judicata,<\/p>\n
    should not be heard at all by the Trial Court. The<\/p>\n
    written statement also includes other contentions of<\/p>\n
    the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    5.              The     Trial        Court       after       closing       of      the<\/p>\n
    evidence      adduced    by     the     parties,         written          notes     of<\/p>\n
    arguments     (at     Exh.     256    and    Exh.       258)       respectively,<\/p>\n
    framed necessary issues for determination. The Trial<\/p>\n
    Court   has    framed     as    many        as    seven       issues       for     its<\/p>\n
    determination and consideration. So far personal and<\/p>\n
    bonafide requirement of the plaintiff is concerned,<\/p>\n
    the issue No. 2 was framed by the Trial Court and said<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
    issue has been answered in negative. The issue No. 4<\/p>\n
    i.e.    “Whether     defendant     prove    that       suit       of     the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff is false?”        is answered in the negative. The<\/p>\n
    another issue i.e. Issue No. 5-A ” whether suit is<\/p>\n
    barred by principle of res-judicata?” the said issue<\/p>\n
    is also answered in negative. However, the Trial Court<\/p>\n
    held against the plaintiffs on the point of bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement     of   the   suit    premises,    and     further         held<\/p>\n
    that the plaintiff is not entitled for possession.\n<\/p>\n
                 It appears that the Original plaintiff has<\/p>\n
    filed application for amendment of the plaint. By way<\/p>\n
    of   said    amendment,    the    plaintiffs    pleaded        that       the<\/p>\n
    defendant has built and acquired suitable residential<\/p>\n
    house   in      Gurukul    Co-operative     Housing         Society        at<\/p>\n
    Amalner, and the defendant is residing therein with<\/p>\n
    his family members.         It appears that by way of said<\/p>\n
    amendment the ground was taken in the plaint, that<\/p>\n
    defendant possessed his own house, he is residing in<\/p>\n
    the said house and on that ground, the Court can pass<\/p>\n
    the necessary decree in respect of suit premises.                         The<\/p>\n
    original defendants filed reply to the amended plaint.\n<\/p>\n
    It further appears that at the time of final hearing<\/p>\n
    of the suit, the Trial Court, was aware about the<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
    amendment    brought   by     the   plaintiff.         However,          it<\/p>\n
    appears that, no separate issue was framed in respect<\/p>\n
    of plaintiff’s assertion that the original defendant<\/p>\n
    has constructed and acquired his own house in                   Gurukul<\/p>\n
    Co-operative   Housing   Society    at   Amalner,         and      he    is<\/p>\n
    residing there with his family members.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           The Trial Court, dismisseded the suit with<\/p>\n
    costs, and decree was drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Though the Trial Court, dismissed the suit,<\/p>\n
    the issue No. 4 i.e. ” whether defendant prove that<\/p>\n
    the suit of the plaintiff is false? and issue No. 5(A)<\/p>\n
    Whether suit is barred by principle of res-judicata?”\n<\/p>\n
    have been answered in the negative. Being aggrieved by<\/p>\n
    the findings of the Trial Court on issues No. 4 & 5(A)<\/p>\n
    in Regular Civil Suit No. 154 of 1994, the original<\/p>\n
    defendant    i.e.   Narayan    Jairam    Marathe        filed       Civil<\/p>\n
    Appeal No. 14\/2004 before the Adhoc District Judge-1,<\/p>\n
    Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. The original plaintiff i.e.<\/p>\n
    Rajaram Keshav Dhobi also filed Civil Appeal No. 15 of<\/p>\n
    2004, challenging the judgment and decree in Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil Suit No. 159 of 1994.         The specific contention<\/p>\n
    was raised in the said appeal that the issue regarding<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
    assertion    of     the   plaintiff       that     the     defendant           has<\/p>\n
    constructed and acquired his own house in Gurukul Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative      Housing      Society      at    Amalner,          and     he     is<\/p>\n
    residing with his other family members has not been<\/p>\n
    framed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    8.             It   appears     that      Adhoc     District           Judge-1,<\/p>\n
    Amalner, passed order below (Exh. 1) in Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
    NO. 15 of 2004, thereby framed the issue i.e. “Whether<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs        prove      that        defendant         has         acquired<\/p>\n
    residential house in Gurukul Kripa Cooperative Housing<\/p>\n
    Society   at      Amalner    and    thus       built\/acquired            vacant<\/p>\n
    possession of a suitable residence?.                     The said issue,<\/p>\n
    was referred to lower Court for Trial. The lower Court<\/p>\n
    was   permitted      to     record       additional         evidence,           if<\/p>\n
    required.    The    lower    court       was   directed         to     try     the<\/p>\n
    issue referred and shall return the evidence, if any<\/p>\n
    to Appellate Court together with its findings thereon<\/p>\n
    and reasons therefor, within a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
    The parties were directed to remain present on 16th<\/p>\n
    August, 2008. the record and proceedings were sent to<\/p>\n
    lower Court.\n<\/p>\n
                On perusal of the records, it appears that<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
    said order dated 24th July, 2008 attained finality and<\/p>\n
    same was not challenged by the defendant before Higher<\/p>\n
    Court.\n<\/p>\n
                   The   Joint    Civil        Judge,      Junior         Division,<\/p>\n
    Amalner,       after   hearing       the     plaintiff          as     well       as<\/p>\n
    defendant,       and    after        taking        into        consideration<\/p>\n
    evidence brought on record answered additional issue<\/p>\n
    in the affirmative, and Record and proceedings of the<\/p>\n
    suit were sent back to Adhoc District Judge-1, Amalner<\/p>\n
    along with original record in respect of the Judgment<\/p>\n
    and Order dated 9th January, 2009 on additional issue<\/p>\n
    to the Adhoc District Judge-1, Amalner.\n<\/p>\n
    9.             It appears that the original defendant filed<\/p>\n
    cross    objection     Under        Order    41     Rule       26     of     Civil<\/p>\n
    Procedure Code, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order<\/p>\n
    dated    9th   January,      2009    passed       by    the      Joint       Civil<\/p>\n
    Judge, Junior Division, Amalner on additional issue in<\/p>\n
    Regular Civil Suit No. 159 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
    10.            The Adhoc District Judge-1, Amalner delivered<\/p>\n
    the final Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 2009,<\/p>\n
    by which Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2004 filed by the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
    original defendant i.e. Revision applicant in Civil<\/p>\n
    Revision    Application      No.    190    of     2009         came       to    be<\/p>\n
    dismissed, and Civil Revision Application No. 15 of<\/p>\n
    2004 filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed.                                The<\/p>\n
    Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
    Junior Division, Amalner, in Regular Civil Suit No.<\/p>\n
    159 of 1994 was set aside and following order was<\/p>\n
    passed :-\n<\/p>\n
                ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       The suit is hereby decreed.<\/p>\n
                       The defendant is hereby directed to<\/p>\n
                deliver    the    vacant       possession          of     the
\n                suit    premises       as    described        in     plaint
\n                para NO. 1 to the plaintiff within the<\/p>\n
                period of two[2] months from the date of<\/p>\n
                order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       The plaintiff is entitled for the
\n                mense profits from the date of the suit<\/p>\n
                till handing over of the possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       The cross objection filed by the
\n                defendant is hereby dismissed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.         The    Counsel     appearing           for      the       revision<\/p>\n
    applicant i.e. Original defendant in Civil Revision<\/p>\n
    Application No. 190 of 2009 submitted that the premise<\/p>\n
    in    Gurukul     Sahakari   Gruh        Nirman      Sanstha,          Amalner<\/p>\n
    cannot be said to be suitable alternate accommodation<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the defendant. The said premise is insufficient for<\/p>\n
    all the members who were and are residing in the suit<\/p>\n
    premises as a tenant. Further, the Son of Narayan by<\/p>\n
    name Prakash is residing separately in the premise in<\/p>\n
    Gurukul Housing Cooperative Society, at Amalner. Thus,<\/p>\n
    premises at Gurukul Co-operative Housing Society is<\/p>\n
    not available to the defendant for his residence. It<\/p>\n
    is     further      submitted      that     after        earlier          suit<\/p>\n
    instituted by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground<\/p>\n
    of    bonafide   requirement,      the     present     suit,       was      not<\/p>\n
    maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement, in<\/p>\n
    absence of any fresh cause of action. It is further<\/p>\n
    submitted     that     admittedly,      Jairam     Marathe         was      the<\/p>\n
    original tenant. On his death his heir i.e. Narayan as<\/p>\n
    well as Anil both have inherited the tenancy rights of<\/p>\n
    Jairam. Therefore, Anil was also a necessary party to<\/p>\n
    the    suit   for      eviction,    when    he    was      earlier          and<\/p>\n
    presently residing in the suit premises. The suit was<\/p>\n
    instituted without adding him party, is suffers from<\/p>\n
    non-joinder      of    necessary    parties.       The      second        suit<\/p>\n
    instituted by the plaintiff on the ground of, bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement      was    also    barred.     The     learned         Counsel<\/p>\n
    invited my attention to the grounds taken in appeal<\/p>\n
    memo and also written statement which was filed before<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   Courts     below,      and     submitted      that       the      Civil<\/p>\n
    Revision    Application deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The learned Counsel appearing for Revision<\/p>\n
    applicant      i.e.   Ori.     Plaintiff      in      Civil        Revision<\/p>\n
    Application No. 145 of 2009 invited my attention, to<\/p>\n
    the   grounds    taken    in   the      application      and     submitted<\/p>\n
    that as per Section 13(1)(g) of the Act, the land-lord<\/p>\n
    can recover possession of the premises for reasonable<\/p>\n
    and bonafide requirement for occupation for himself or<\/p>\n
    by any person for whose benefit the premises are held.\n<\/p>\n
    The Learned Counsel, submitted that the applicant is<\/p>\n
    retired from the service, and the present construction<\/p>\n
    is not sufficient for him and his family members for<\/p>\n
    residence as well as for occupation. The Courts below<\/p>\n
    have failed to consider the reasonable and bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement, inspite of applicant pleaded details of<\/p>\n
    his family members and has also, in evidence given<\/p>\n
    details of the same. It is further submitted that the<\/p>\n
    reasonable and bonafide requirement of the land-lord’s<\/p>\n
    family members, who are dependent on the land-lord for<\/p>\n
    the purpose of residence or economic consideration can<\/p>\n
    be considered. As the requirement of, land-lord and<\/p>\n
    for the sake of setting the family members in business<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
    land-lord can seek eviction of tenant. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
    has successfully led evidence, detailing the need and<\/p>\n
    also       how       present        premises       in     his       possession           is<\/p>\n
    inadequate           for      his     whole        family        which        is      ever<\/p>\n
    increasing.            Therefore,          according          to        the     Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing            for      the     Ori.        Plaintiff,            eviction         on<\/p>\n
    reasonable and bonafide requirement, the Courts below<\/p>\n
    should have allowed the suit of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    13.              I\n                           \n                           have       given     due        consideration            to      the\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
    arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing<\/p>\n
    for the respective parties. I have also perused the<\/p>\n
    Civil Revision Application along with its annexures<\/p>\n
    and record and proceedings which are received from the<\/p>\n
    lower Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
    14.              The       revision       can     be    entertained            by     this<\/p>\n
    Court, in a case no appeal lies from the decision of<\/p>\n
    the subordinate Court, and if such subordinate Court<\/p>\n
    appears to have exercise his jurisdiction not vested<\/p>\n
    in    it    by       law,     or     to    have        failed      to    exercise          a<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction           so        vested,     or    to     have      acted        in     the<\/p>\n
    exercise         of        its      jurisdiction          illegally           or      with<\/p>\n
    material irregularity. Under Section 115<\/a> of the Civil<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
    Procedure         Code<\/a>,       this            Court       cannot            re-appreciate<\/p>\n
    evidence and cannot, set aside the concurrent findings<\/p>\n
    of the Courts below, by taking different view of the<\/p>\n
    evidence. This Court, empowered to interfere with the<\/p>\n
    findings      of    fact,       if    the          findings           are    perverse         or<\/p>\n
    there has been a non appreciation or non consideration<\/p>\n
    of    the    material         evidence             on    record         by     the     Courts<\/p>\n
    below.\n<\/p>\n
    15.           The
\n                          igprinciple         grievance              in     Civil       Revision<\/p>\n
    Application         No.    145    of          2009       filed        by    the     original<\/p>\n
    plaintiff         appears       to     be          that       the      reasonable            and<\/p>\n
    bonafide      requirement            of       the       plaintiff           has    not     been<\/p>\n
    properly appreciated, by the Courts below. It was the<\/p>\n
    contention of the plaintiff that the suit premises is<\/p>\n
    reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
    in view of the number of family members dependant upon<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff and also the plaintiff is retired from<\/p>\n
    the service and the present construction \/residence is<\/p>\n
    not   sufficient          for    him          and       his    family        members         for<\/p>\n
    residence,         as    well    as       occupation.               In      this     respect<\/p>\n
    Joint       Civil       Judge,       Senior             Division,           Amalner,         had<\/p>\n
    framed      the     issue       No.       2    and       said       issue,        had      been<\/p>\n
    answered       in       the     negative.               The      Trial        Court,         has<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
    considered the oral evidence adduce on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff. In para No. 12 of the Judgment, the Trial<\/p>\n
    Court    has     referred       evidence          of       plaintiff          and      his<\/p>\n
    witness.        The     Court,        has        also       referred           to      the<\/p>\n
    documentary          evidence    at    (Exh.          65    to    Exh.      89).       The<\/p>\n
    Court has also considered, the other witness examined<\/p>\n
    on     behalf    of     the     plaintiff.            The      Court        has      also<\/p>\n
    referred        to     the    evidence           of        defendant         in      same<\/p>\n
    paragraph. In para No. 13 of the Judgment, the Court<\/p>\n
    has also referred to Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. The<\/p>\n
    Court has dealt with the contention of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
    about his bonafide requirement of the suit premises in<\/p>\n
    para No. 15. It was recorded in the said paragraph<\/p>\n
    that the plaintiff’s case is that he is residing along<\/p>\n
    with    his     wife,two      sons,        a     daughter-in-law              and      two<\/p>\n
    grand sons since the year 1998.                       Thus, the constructed<\/p>\n
    rooms are insufficient for their residence. The Court<\/p>\n
    has     further       referred        to       the      contentions            of      the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff that the photo studio is in one room and<\/p>\n
    customary washer business working is in another room<\/p>\n
    and only in one room, all members of the family are<\/p>\n
    residing. The Trial Court in para No. 21 has referred<\/p>\n
    to the submissions of the defendant on the aspect of<\/p>\n
    bonafide      requirement        of        the    suit        premises          of     the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
    plaintiff.      The     Court       has        referred       to    the      relevant<\/p>\n
    documentary       proof       and        also     to        the    Commissioner’s<\/p>\n
    report along with maps at (Exh. 139 and 203) and held,<\/p>\n
    that    this      evidence      is        found        in     corroboration            of<\/p>\n
    defendant’s       submission.            The     Court       has    given        detail<\/p>\n
    findings       about    the     Commissioner’s                report        in      said<\/p>\n
    paragraph.      The     Court    has       also       recorded        the     finding<\/p>\n
    that the Studio business has not been running in suit<\/p>\n
    premises, and both the sons of Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2<\/p>\n
    are shifted at Pune. The Court has also referred to<\/p>\n
    the    cross-examination            of    the     plaintiff          in    which       he<\/p>\n
    admits that one room out of constructed rooms was let<\/p>\n
    out    to   the      others     by       them.     The        Court,       has      also<\/p>\n
    recorded in para No. 22 that 2\/3rd portion which is in<\/p>\n
    possession of the plaintiff is containing four rooms<\/p>\n
    at suit premises as well as another property No. 81\/2<\/p>\n
    available       to     them     nearby          the     side       of      the      suit<\/p>\n
    premises. In para No. 28, 29 & 30 of the Judgment, the<\/p>\n
    Court taking into consideration another property T.P.\n<\/p>\n
    No. 81\/2 at short distance as well as open space site<\/p>\n
    available to plaintiff to meet their requirement of<\/p>\n
    alleged construction of latrine etc.                          The Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    held    that      the     plaintiff             failed        to     prove        their<\/p>\n
    reasonable bonafide requirement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
    16.           The plaintiff aggrieved by the findings of<\/p>\n
    the Trial Court, preferred appeal. In appeal also in<\/p>\n
    para    No.    61   the     Appellate    Court     held        that       the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit premises<\/p>\n
    are required for reasonable and bonafide requirement<\/p>\n
    by the plaintiff for their occupation. In substance<\/p>\n
    the Appellate Court, has confirmed the findings of the<\/p>\n
    Trial Court, on the point of bonafide requirement of<\/p>\n
    the    suit   premises.     Therefore,    there      are     concurrent<\/p>\n
    findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, that<\/p>\n
    the land-lord\/plaintiff failed to prove that the suit<\/p>\n
    premises are reasonably and bonafide requirement of<\/p>\n
    the    plaintiff    for   their   occupation.       Both      the     Court<\/p>\n
    have taken into consideration the adjoining property<\/p>\n
    of the plaintiff, and also the house owned by his son<\/p>\n
    at Pune. The Court, has also recorded the finding that<\/p>\n
    the 2\/3rd portion contains four rooms. Therefore, there<\/p>\n
    are concurrent findings of facts in consonance with<\/p>\n
    the evidence        brought on record by the parties. I do<\/p>\n
    not find, that the concurrent findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
    Courts below are perverse. Therefore, Civil Revision<\/p>\n
    Application     No.   145    of   2009   filed    by    the      original<\/p>\n
    plaintiff’s     is devoid of any merits.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
    17.           The     Civil    Revision application                 NO. 19o         of<\/p>\n
    2009 is filed by the Original defendant. The principle<\/p>\n
    grievance       which    is    raised,      in      this       Civil      Revision<\/p>\n
    Application is about maintainability of Regular civil<\/p>\n
    Suit    No.     159     of    1994.    According          to     the      revision<\/p>\n
    applicant,      the     original      plaintiff           did    file      Regular<\/p>\n
    Civil    Suit    No.     104\/1974      on   the       ground       of     bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement, and since the said suit was dismissed,<\/p>\n
    the Regular Civil Suit No. 159\/2004 being barred by<\/p>\n
    the principle of res-judicata was not maintainable. In<\/p>\n
    this respect, both the courts, have held against the<\/p>\n
    Revision applicant \/ Ori. defendant. The Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    has frame specific issue on this aspect i.e. issue No.<\/p>\n
    5(A)    “Whether       suit    is    barred      by    principle          of     res-\n<\/p>\n
    judicata?       same    is    answered      in      the     negative.          While<\/p>\n
    answering       the     said    issue.        The      Trial        Court,         has<\/p>\n
    discussed this issue from para No. 35 onwards. The<\/p>\n
    Trial Court, has referred to the Judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n
    Court in a case of “Surajmal V\/s. Radheshyam, reported<\/p>\n
    in AIR, 1988 SC” and more particularly para No. 8 of<\/p>\n
    the    Judgment,       and    also    placed     reliance          on     reported<\/p>\n
    Judgment in the case of ” Mangharam Chuharmal V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    B.C. Patel and others, reported in AIR, 1972 Bombay<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
    46″, and held ratio laid down in the said Judgments is<\/p>\n
    squarely applicable in the facts of this case. Hon’ble<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in case of “Surajmal V\/s. Radheshyam”\n<\/p>\n
    cited supra has held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
               ”          Where    a     suit    for      eviction          from
\n               premises comprising of shop on ground of
\n               bonafide need was dismissed, the second<\/p>\n
               suit        on     the     same        ground      would        be
\n               competent.\n<\/p>\n
                       ig          The    bonafide        need       must      be\n               considered         with     reference         to    the      time\n<\/pre>\n
               when a suit for eviction is filed and it<\/p>\n
               can        not     be     assumed        that      once        the
\n               question of necessity is decided against
\n               the land-lord it has to be assumed that<\/p>\n
               he will not have a bonafide and genuine
\n               necessity ever in future.”\n<\/p>\n
    18.            Therefore, in my opinion,looking to the facts<\/p>\n
    of this case and more particularly, pleadings in the<\/p>\n
    plaint    that    the       defendant       has    constructed           his      own<\/p>\n
    house    and     he    is     residing       along      with       his      family<\/p>\n
    members, appears to be new pleading taken in Regular<\/p>\n
    Suit No. 159 of 1994 by way of amending the plaint in<\/p>\n
    the     year     2004,        and     therefore,           the       suit         was<\/p>\n
    maintainable. The Appellate Court, has also held that<\/p>\n
    the suit was not hit by principal of res-judicata.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
    Therefore, there is no substance, in the contention<\/p>\n
    raised by the Counsel for the original defendant that<\/p>\n
    the Regular Civil Suit No. 159 of 1994 was hit by<\/p>\n
    principles of res-judicata.\n<\/p>\n
    19.          So far as framing of additional issue by the<\/p>\n
    Appellate Court, and referring it to the Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    for   recording      the   finding          on    additional             issue     i.e.<\/p>\n
    “Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has<\/p>\n
    acquired     residential          house          in    Gurukul           Kripa      Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative     Housing       Society              at     Amalner          and       thus<\/p>\n
    build\/acquired        vacant       possession               of       a     suitable<\/p>\n
    residence?” is concerned, the order dated 24th July,<\/p>\n
    2008 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Amalner,<\/p>\n
    referring     this    issue       to    the       Trial       Court,        attained<\/p>\n
    finality and same was not challenged by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,     the        Trial        Court,         after        taking          into<\/p>\n
    consideration, the rival submissions answered the said<\/p>\n
    issue   in    the    affirmative.            Therefore,            there       is     no<\/p>\n
    substance, in the contention of the Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for the revision applicant \/ Ori. Defendant, that the<\/p>\n
    Appellate     Court,       was     not       justified            in      referring<\/p>\n
    additional issue to the Trial Court, for giving the<\/p>\n
    findings     and    for    recording         additional            evidence,          if<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                       21<\/span><\/p>\n
    felt necessary. It is true, that after the additional<\/p>\n
    issue was answered by the Trial Court, the Original<\/p>\n
    defendants filed cross-objections before the Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court, however, said cross-objections are negatived by<\/p>\n
    the lower Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
    20.          Both the Courts have held that the defendant<\/p>\n
    failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
    false. The specific issue was framed in that respect<\/p>\n
    and contention of the defendant, that the suit of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff is false has been negatived by the Courts<\/p>\n
    below.\n<\/p>\n
    21.          The main ground, on which the Appellate Court<\/p>\n
    set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court, is<\/p>\n
    that   the    defendant    is     built\/acquired          house       having<\/p>\n
    necessary     facilities    and    same    is     suitable         for      the<\/p>\n
    residence, and further defendant has failed to produce<\/p>\n
    positive      evidence     to   show      that      the       house         has<\/p>\n
    built\/acquired       by   him     is   not      suitable          for       his<\/p>\n
    residence. The Trial Court, as well as Appellate Court<\/p>\n
    held   that    the   defendant      has   acquired\/built              vacant<\/p>\n
    possession of suitable residence for himself and his<\/p>\n
    family members at Gurukul Co-operative Housing Society<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:42 :::<\/span>
\n                                              22<\/span><\/p>\n
    at Amalner, and further held that plaintiff entitled<\/p>\n
    for   the   relief       of    recovery         of    possession           of     suit<\/p>\n
    premises.\n<\/p>\n
    22.         The     Trial           Court      while        considering             the<\/p>\n
    additional       issue        referred        by     the      Adhoc        District<\/p>\n
    Judge-1, Amalner, had given hearing to the parties,<\/p>\n
    had also allowed them to led their evidence. The Trial<\/p>\n
    Court, in para No. 10 has referred to the provisions<\/p>\n
    of    Section     13(1)<\/a>       (l)    of       the    said     Act.       The      said<\/p>\n
    provision reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
                \"      Section          13<\/a>    -    When     landlord          may\n      \n\n                recover possession :-\n                (1)    Notwithstanding anything contained\n   \n\n\n\n                in     this       Act,       a     landlord        shall        be\n<\/pre>\n
                entitled to recover possession of any
\n                premises if the Court is satisfied-\n<\/p>\n
                (a)    ………………………..\n<\/p>\n
                (L)    That the tenant after the coming
\n                into operation of this Act has built,
\n                acquired vacant possession of or been<\/p>\n
                allotted a suitable residence.”\n<\/p>\n
                The     Trial        Court,         has      referred           to      the<\/p>\n
    documentary evidence, in para No. 13. The Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    has referred to the notice sent to defendant (Exh.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
    228),    extract     of    assessment      of    house       of     defendant<\/p>\n
    (Exh. 79), voter’s list(Exh.92), electric bill (Exh.\n<\/p>\n
    133) and also other documents. The Court, has also<\/p>\n
    referred to the documents produced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    defendant i.e. voter’s lists (Exh. 291,292 and 391),<\/p>\n
    letter of gas connection (Exh. 293), electric Bills<\/p>\n
    (Exh. 295 to 298) etc. The Court, has referred                                  in<\/p>\n
    para No. 14 to the affidavit              of examination-in-chief.\n<\/p>\n
    In examination-in-chief the plaintiff, contended that<\/p>\n
    the    defendant     has    purchased      plot      bearing        T.P.       No.<\/p>\n
    184\/2 (A) of 1500 Sq. feet in Gurukul Graha Nirman<\/p>\n
    Sahakari Sanstha, Amalner, in his own name and he has<\/p>\n
    constructed      the       spacious      house       of      three         rooms<\/p>\n
    consisting     of      toilet,    bathroom,           hall        etc.,        and<\/p>\n
    remaining plot is open. Defendant has constructed the<\/p>\n
    house    in    the     year   1988-89         and    since        1990-1991,<\/p>\n
    defendant and his family members are residing in the<\/p>\n
    said house.     The plaintiff has filed several documents<\/p>\n
    showing that defendant having a plot bearing T.P. No.<\/p>\n
    184 in Gurukul Shahakari Society. In para No. 15 the<\/p>\n
    Trial Court has observed that ” it is pertinent to<\/p>\n
    note    here   that    defendant        has   admitted         that      he     is<\/p>\n
    having plot No. 14 in his name, as alleged by the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               24<\/span><\/p>\n
    23.            The Trial Court, has further dealt with the<\/p>\n
    contention of the defendant that though the said plot<\/p>\n
    is in the name of the defendant, the defendant was<\/p>\n
    never residing in the said house. However, the Court<\/p>\n
    has referred in para No. 16, the death certificate of<\/p>\n
    father    of    the     defendant          Jairam         Marathe       (Exh.       65).\n<\/p>\n
    Perusal    of    death       certificate             (Exh.     65)      shows       that<\/p>\n
    Jairam     Marathe died in the year 1993 in the house at<\/p>\n
    Gurukul    Society          which    is        his    permanent         address        as<\/p>\n
    mentioned      in     the    certificate.            In     para       No.   17,      the<\/p>\n
    Trial Court, has further referred                         to the voter’s list<\/p>\n
    at (Exh. 92) of assembly election in the year 1998 of<\/p>\n
    election       booth        No.     151,        Amalner,          to     show       that<\/p>\n
    defendant,       his        wife      Vithabai,             son        Prakash        and<\/p>\n
    daughter-in-law             Mirabai       are        residing           in    Gurukul<\/p>\n
    Housing    Society,          and    their           names    are       included        in<\/p>\n
    voter’s list of booth No. 151. The Trial Court, has<\/p>\n
    observed       that    on     perusal          of    the     voter’s         list      it<\/p>\n
    transpires, that the name of defendant and his family<\/p>\n
    members are appearing in both the voter’s list, and<\/p>\n
    further    observed         that    voter’s          list     cannot         be   taken<\/p>\n
    into consideration. In para No. 18, the Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    has referred electric bill of house of defendant at<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              25<\/span><\/p>\n
    Gurukul Housing Society (Exh. 133), which shows that<\/p>\n
    the electric connection is in the name of defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    The defendant further placed on record (Exh. 295 to<\/p>\n
    298), to show that the electric bills of the suit<\/p>\n
    house is in his name, and therefore, the Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    has not taken into consideration the electric bills.\n<\/p>\n
    In     para    No.        19,    the    Court       has     referred        to      the<\/p>\n
    submissions         of     the    plaintiff      and       commission          report<\/p>\n
    (Exh.    41).       As ig  per    the    report,      the       T.P.     Plot       No.<\/p>\n
    184\/2(A)       in         Gurukul      Housing      Society,        Amalner,         is<\/p>\n
    having        area of 1500 Sq. ft., there is one hall, one<\/p>\n
    kitchen, one store room, open space of 5.9×7.3 feet,<\/p>\n
    toilet and bathroom in the said house, and remaining<\/p>\n
    plot is open.              In para No. 20 the Court has further<\/p>\n
    considered          the     death      certificate         of     wife      of      the<\/p>\n
    defendant (Exh. 290) and recorded                         the submission that<\/p>\n
    defendant       wife        Vithabai      died      in      the    suit        house.\n<\/p>\n
    However, the Trial Court, observed in para No. 20 that<\/p>\n
    the defendant in his cross-examination has admitted<\/p>\n
    that he had given information regarding death of his<\/p>\n
    wife    with    Municipal           Council     for       getting      her       death<\/p>\n
    certificate.              The    Court        has         referred        to        the<\/p>\n
    examination-in-chief of the defendant in para No. 21<\/p>\n
    and,     as     per        original      Written          Statement         of      the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                        26<\/span><\/p>\n
    defendant, he stated that his father died in the suit<\/p>\n
    property and after death of his father, he along with<\/p>\n
    his wife, wife of deceased Hari and wife children’s of<\/p>\n
    Hari’s sons Anil and Ramesh              are residing in the suit<\/p>\n
    property.\n<\/p>\n
    24.          The Trial Court, has taken into consideration<\/p>\n
    (Exh. 228) i.e. the acknowledgment of notice                        sent       to<\/p>\n
    the    defendant      on
\n                         ig    the    address      of     Gurukul         Housing<\/p>\n
    Society at (Exh. 5), the summons of the suit received<\/p>\n
    by    the    defendant     sent   on     the   address         of     Gurukul<\/p>\n
    Housing Society. The (Exh. 84) brought on record, by<\/p>\n
    the plaintiff i.e. receipt of money order of rent sent<\/p>\n
    by    defendant     to   the   brother    of    plaintiff           from      the<\/p>\n
    address      of     Gurukul    Housing     Society.          Taking         into<\/p>\n
    consideration the evidence on record, the Trial Court,<\/p>\n
    recorded the finding that “on perusal of all these<\/p>\n
    documents     it    reveals    that     defendant       is    residing         in<\/p>\n
    Gurukul Housing Society since many years. He has also<\/p>\n
    received summons of the suit and notice on the same<\/p>\n
    address. Furthermore he himself has sent money order<\/p>\n
    of rent from the said address. All these things goes<\/p>\n
    to    show   that    defendant    is    having      his      residence         in<\/p>\n
    Gurukul Housing Society. Though defendant has tried to<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          27<\/span><\/p>\n
    bring on record evidence showing his residence of suit<\/p>\n
    property.       From      the    above    it   is     clear      that      he    is<\/p>\n
    residing       in    Gurukul        Housing      Society.”           (emphasis<\/p>\n
    supplied).\n<\/p>\n
    25.         In para No. 23, the Trial Court, has referred<\/p>\n
    to the “cross-examination of the defendant, in which<\/p>\n
    he has admitted that he is having house in his name in<\/p>\n
    Guaukul    Housing   ig   Society    and   he       is    having       electric<\/p>\n
    connection and ration card on the same address and his<\/p>\n
    name entered in the record of Municipal Council in the<\/p>\n
    column of possessor”. (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
    26.         The Trial Court, has discussed the evidence<\/p>\n
    of    defendant’s      son      Prakash    who      has     stated       in     his<\/p>\n
    evidence that since 1988, he along with his wife and<\/p>\n
    three     children’s       are    residing       in       Gurukul       Housing<\/p>\n
    Society, and his parents and his uncle’s                       family never<\/p>\n
    residing in the Gurukul Housing Society.                         Further the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff has brought on record the evidence, in the<\/p>\n
    nature of voter’s list of Assembly election of 1995<\/p>\n
    (Exh. 279), showing name of the defendant, his wife,<\/p>\n
    his      son        and      daughter-in-law.               Taking            into<\/p>\n
    consideration,        rival       contentions         and      evidence          on<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             28<\/span><\/p>\n
    record adduced by the parties, the Trial Court, has<\/p>\n
    answered    the      additional             issue   and      held      that,        the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff proved that defendant has acquired \/built<\/p>\n
    vacant possession of suitable residence for himself at<\/p>\n
    Grukul Kripa Co-operative Housing Society.\n<\/p>\n
    27.         The      Appellate          Court,       has      considered            the<\/p>\n
    additional issue in para No. 46 of its judgment. The<\/p>\n
    Appellate       Court,
\n                        ig      has     observed         that       the       defendant<\/p>\n
    during      his      cross-examination                 has        specifically,<\/p>\n
    admitted about the house constructed at Gurukul Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative       Housing      Society,          Amalner.         The       Appellate<\/p>\n
    Court    reproduced         part       of    the    cross-examination                in<\/p>\n
    vernacular language in the said para. On reading the<\/p>\n
    portion     of       the     cross-examination                  available            in<\/p>\n
    vernacular        language        in    para        No.     46,      it     clearly<\/p>\n
    emerges, that the defendant has admitted that he is<\/p>\n
    member     of      Gurukul         Sahakari          Grahanirman            Housing<\/p>\n
    Society, Amalner. This society has allotted                                 plot to<\/p>\n
    its members. The size of the plot is 3000 Sq. ft. It<\/p>\n
    further appears, that the defendant has voluntarily<\/p>\n
    made a statement, in the cross-examination that out of<\/p>\n
    3000 Sq.ft., each member has been allotted 1500 Sq.\n<\/p>\n
    ft.   land.     He    has    further          admitted        in      his     cross-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                       29<\/span><\/p>\n
    examination, that he has constructed the house on the<\/p>\n
    said     plot,   in     the    said    society.      It      is     further<\/p>\n
    admitted, in his cross-examination that the electirc<\/p>\n
    connection in the newly constructed premise is in his<\/p>\n
    name, even he holds ration card in which his name and<\/p>\n
    his family members names are mentioned. In the said<\/p>\n
    ration card the name of Gurukul Housing Society have<\/p>\n
    also     mentioned.     Therefore,      in    para       No.      47,       the<\/p>\n
    Appellate Court, recorded the finding that defendant<\/p>\n
    is the member of Gurukul Co-operative Housing Society,<\/p>\n
    Amalner,     a   plot     allotted      to   the      defendant,            the<\/p>\n
    defendant has constructed              on the said plot and the<\/p>\n
    defendant is residing in the said house along with his<\/p>\n
    wife and children.\n<\/p>\n
    28.         Therefore, on careful reading of the findings<\/p>\n
    recorded by the Courts below. It clearly emerges, that<\/p>\n
    the revision applicant i.e. original defendant is a<\/p>\n
    member     of    Gurukul       Co-operative       Housing          Society,<\/p>\n
    Amalner, plot was allotted to the defendant, defendant<\/p>\n
    has constructed the house on the said plot and the<\/p>\n
    defendant is residing in the same house along with his<\/p>\n
    wife and children.            The concurrent findings of facts<\/p>\n
    on this issue recorded by both the Courts below are<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             30<\/span><\/p>\n
    absolutely in consonance with the evidence brought on<\/p>\n
    record     by    the       plaintiff.         The        said     findings          are<\/p>\n
    recorded,        taking        into     consideration               the       entire<\/p>\n
    evidence    on       record    by     the     plaintiff         and    defendant.\n<\/p>\n
    When both the Courts below on facts concurrently held<\/p>\n
    on this issue against the defendant and the applicant<\/p>\n
    has utterly failed to prove any perversity in those<\/p>\n
    findings,        in     my     opinion,            any     interference              in<\/p>\n
    revisional jurisdiction is unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
    29.         The        Appellate            Court,        has       taken         into<\/p>\n
    consideration that the plaintiff has filed suit for<\/p>\n
    the    relief    of     recovery       of     possession          of     the      suit<\/p>\n
    property    from       the     defendant,           on     the     ground         that<\/p>\n
    defendant has acquired and build, vacant possession of<\/p>\n
    suitable residence, and also on the ground of bonafide<\/p>\n
    requirement of suit premises in para No. 65 of its<\/p>\n
    Judgment.       In    my     opinion,        the    Appellate          Court,       has<\/p>\n
    rightly    arrive       to    the     conclusion          that    the      evidence<\/p>\n
    which has come on record is sufficient to fulfill the<\/p>\n
    condition as laid down in Section 13(1) (L) of the<\/p>\n
    said      Act,        that      the         defendant            has       acquired<\/p>\n
    accommodation for himself and for his family members.\n<\/p>\n
    The Appellate Court, has further recorded finding in<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            31<\/span><\/p>\n
    para 50 of the Judgment that the defendant has never<\/p>\n
    came    with    a   case       that    the       house     at     Gurukul         Co-\n<\/p>\n
    operative Housing society as constructed by him is not<\/p>\n
    suitable for his residence and for residence of his<\/p>\n
    family members.          On the contrary, the defendant in his<\/p>\n
    defense has constantly, contended that his son Prakash<\/p>\n
    is     residing     in    the     house      constructed            at    Gurukul<\/p>\n
    Cooperative Housing society, Amalner along with his<\/p>\n
    family. Therefore, the Appellate Court, taking into<\/p>\n
    consideration       the      evidence       on    record,        recorded         the<\/p>\n
    finding that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove that<\/p>\n
    the    defendant       has     acquired      vacant      possession            of    a<\/p>\n
    suitable residence.\n<\/p>\n
    30.           Taking      into     consideration,             the        arguments<\/p>\n
    advanced on behalf of the learned Counsels for the<\/p>\n
    respective        parties,       the   findings          recorded         by      the<\/p>\n
    Courts     below,        the     record          and     proceedings            made<\/p>\n
    available for perusal and other documents brought on<\/p>\n
    record     by the parties, I am of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
    Courts below have taken plausible view in consonance<\/p>\n
    with the evidence brought on record by the parties,<\/p>\n
    Both    the    Civil     Revision      Applications             are      rejected,<\/p>\n
    interim relief if any stands vacated. Rule discharged<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                    32<\/span><\/p>\n
    accordingly. Record and proceedings be sent back to<\/p>\n
    the concerned Court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    31.        In    view   of   the    dismissal      of     the      Civil<\/p>\n
    Revision Applications pending, the Civil Applications<\/p>\n
    if any are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                      ig                     [S.S. SHINDE, J]\n\n    SDM*145.09 CRA\n                    \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court 2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 145 OF 2009 1] Rajaram Keshav Dhobi, age 66 years, Occu. Pensioner, R\/o Kunde Road, Pawan Chauk, Opp. Wani […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5526,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\",\"name\":\"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010"},"wordCount":5526,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010","name":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T19:31:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/2-nago-keshav-dhobi-dead-vs-narayan-jairam-marathe-on-30-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2] Nago Keshav Dhobi (Dead vs Narayan Jairam Marathe on 30 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}