Sridhar Tamhankar Vs. Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi  INSC 1206 (14 July
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL NO.4353 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP)No.202 of 2009] Dinkar Sridhar Tamhankar
....Appellant VERSUS Bhalchandra Sadashiv Kavadi ....Respondent
In spite of due service of notice on the respondent, the
respondent has failed to appear before us for the purpose of contesting the
By the impugned order, a learned Single Judge of the High Court
has allowed a review application and modified the decree for possession, which
was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of 2 the landlord-appellant
by the Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision.
Feeling aggrieved by this order allowing the application for
review, a Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court, which on grant of
leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the appellant.
In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with
the concurrent orders of the Courts below in the exercise of its power under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
It is not in dispute that the decree for eviction on the ground of
bona fide requirement was passed in favour of the landlord-appellant by the
Small Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision. It is an
admitted fact that an undertaking was filed by the respondent unequivocally
binding himself to vacate the premises in question on or before 31st of
Such being the position, it was not permissible for the High Court
to entertain the review application and modify the decree for eviction passed
on the ground of bona fide requirement as we find that there was no error
apparent on the face of the record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1
of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such review petition.
That being the position, we set aside the impugned order and
restore the order passed by the High Court in revision, which affirmed the
order of the Small Causes Court, Pune directing eviction of the respondent on
the ground of bonafide requirement.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.
will be no order as to costs.
..........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]