NON  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

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

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

the respondent has failed to appear before us for the  

purpose of contesting the appeal.  

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

the High Court has allowed a review application and  

modified  the  decree  for  possession,  which  was  

passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of  

1

the landlord-appellant by the Small Causes Court,  

Pune and affirmed by the High Court in revision.    

4. Feeling  aggrieved  by  this  order  allowing  the  

application for review, a Special Leave Petition was  

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

heard  in  presence  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant.   

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

interfering with the concurrent orders of the Courts  

below in the exercise of its power under Article 227  

of the Constitution.     

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

the ground of bona fide requirement was passed in  

favour  of  the  landlord-appellant  by  the  Small  

Causes Court, Pune and affirmed by the High Court  

in  revision.   It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  an  

undertaking  was  filed  by  the  respondent  

unequivocally  binding  himself  to  vacate  the  

premises in question on or before 31st of December,  

2008.   

2

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

the High Court to entertain the review application  

and modify  the  decree for  eviction  passed on the  

ground  of  bona  fide  requirement  as  we  find  that  

there  was  no  error  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  

record or no other ground under Order XLVII Rule 1  

of the CPC was available to the tenant to file such  

review petition.   

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

order  and  restore  the  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court in revision, which affirmed the order of the  

Small Causes Court, Pune directing eviction of the  

respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement.   

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

There will be no order as to costs.  

……………………..J.  [Tarun Chatterjee]

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

3