AN APPEAL MEMO
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AT PUNE
Civil Appeal No. __/ 200_
Shri   __ E_ V__ K	,	)
age 54 years, occupation - business,	)              Appellant
resident of  200 Shaniwar Peth,	)	(Original
Pune411030.	)	Plaintiff)
Versus
Shri __U_ A__ R	,	)
age 38 years, occupation - service,	)	_       Respondent
resident of 12 Swapneel Society,	)	(Original
Pune 411009.	)	Defendant)
The appellant above-named submits this memo of appeal, praying to state as follows:

(A)That the property bearing CTS No. 200, of Shaniwar Peth, Pune, City is owned by the present appellant.

(B)That in the said property, the prescribed in para 1 of the suit had been let out to the respondent in his independent capacity.

(C)That the respondent had acquired of his own in Swapneel Cooperative Housing Society a flat, and since this flat is suitable and convenient for his accommodation, the respondent had shifted his family to the said flat.

(D)That the appellant demanded the possession of the suit premises from the respondent, as he needed the suit premises for his own occupation and enjoyment, as the premises in his possession are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of his family.

(E) That even though the respondent had acquired other suitable accommodation for himself, he refused to vacate the suit premises, and hence, after serving him with a due notice, the plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction.

(F) That the said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 2000/1999, and the same was tried by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune, and the Learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit by order, dated
BEING AGGRIEVED BY AND DISSATISFIED WITH the judgment and order, dated	, passed by the Small Causes Judge, Pune, in Civil Suit No. 2000/1999, the present appellant prefers this appeal against the same on the following amongst the other grounds of objections thereto:

1. That the Learned Lower Court has not followed the proper procedure, and this has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

2. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are violative of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

3. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are contrary to the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice.

4. That the Learned Lower Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in a judicious manner.

5. That the findings arrived by the Learned Lower Court are not supported by the evidence on record.

6. That the necessary issues of law and fact have not been framed and answered by the Learned Lower Court.

7. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent had been pleading different things at different times and putting forth a false story.

8. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the defendant's brothers and mother do not form a joint family with the respondent, and since right from the beginning, they lived separately, the whole case of the defendant made out to that effect was false and frivolous. 

9. That the Learned Lower Court has not answered the issue Nos. 3 and 4 properly.

10. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that when the respondent had admitted the fact of acquisition of a flat, the burden was lying only on his shoulder to prove his case.

11. That the Learned Lower Court was wrong in holding that in the year 1988, the respondent's family consisted of himself, his wife, two brothers, sisters and mother.

12. That the Learned Lower Court has considered extra-legal matters like temperaments of the other members of the respondent's family in most non-judicious manner and has based its conclusions on these matters.

13. That the Learned Lower Court was wrong in relying upon the story of the respondent that his brothers and mother were residing in the suit premises right from the beginning.

14. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the defendant had introduced his other relations in the suit premises only after shifting himself in his ownership premises.

15. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in relying so heavily on the evidence of the witness, Shri VMK, as he was on cross terms with this appellant.

16. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the said Shri VMK was obliging the respondent by attending the court as a witness though no more is a tenant in the said building, and though there are number of other tenants occupying nearby premises presently who could be called as witnesses, had the contention of the respondent been true.

17. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the newly acquired premises were sufficient to meet the needs of the respondent.

18. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that a family which could be accommodated in the suit premises, if acquires premises about three times in the area, must be said to have acquired other suitable accommodation.

19. That the Learned Lower Court has erroneously overweighed the fact of quarrels taking place in the family of the respondent.

20. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that it believed the witness of the respondent who was on enemical terms with the appellant.

21. That the Learned Lower Court was at error that the provision of section   16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act   1999 was not complied with.

22. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that the newly acquired premises by the respondent were supplemental to the
original premises.

23. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent
had acquired other suitable accommodation for himself.

24. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that the appellant ever has additional three rooms at his disposal.

25. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the appellant
bonafide required the suit premises for his personal occupation.

26. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that there was no
evidence to hold that the appellant has ever got the possession of
three rooms from his tenant.

27. That the Learned Lower Court ought has misconstrued the whole
notion of "bonafides" and has drawn far-reaching illegal and improper
conclusions which are neither legal nor just.

28. That the Learned Lower Court has misconstrued the statement
made by the appellant.

29. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that the
appellant's requirement was not bonafide and reasonable.

30. That the Learned Lower Court was totally at error in holding that the
appellant had failed to prove the acquisition of suitable residence by
the respondent.

31. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the appellant
has established his case squarely.

32. That the Learned Lower Court has not taken into  account the
amendment carried into the original plaint.

33. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent
had shifted into ownership premises only after the suit was filed by the appellant and all the evidence to show non-occupation of the flat till then was ignored by the Learned Lower Court.

34. That Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent had acquired other suitable premises long back in the year 1990, while   his   claim in the suit that he acquired the alternative accommodation in the year 1996 is false and fraudulent.

35. That  the  Learned  Lower Court  has  misconstrued  the  issue  of
bonafide requirement of the appellant.

36. That the Learned Lower Court has failed to consider the fact that the
wife of the respondent herself in service and hardly has any time to
be in the premises.

37. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that taken the fact
into account that the respondent shifted from the suit premises long
back, while his sister was married at late as in 1993.

38. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the voters' list
did not include the names of the respondent and the members of his
family simply because no one resided there.

39. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have considered the report
of the Court Commissioner.

40. That the said order is dated	, while an application for a certified copy was submitted on	, the same was delivered on	and hence, the appeal preferred today is well within limitation.

41. That the appeal is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-
fee at Rs. 600/- that being the valuation of the suit, and proper court-fee thereon is paid herewith.

42. That the appellant, therefore, prays that for the reasons stated above
and those which will be argued at the time of hearing, the record and proceedings be called for, this appeal be allowed, the judgment and order of the Learned Lower Court be set aside and quashed, and the original suit of the appellant be decreed with costs throughout, for which act of grace and favour, this appellant as bounden in duty shall ever pray.
Pune,	Sd/- EVK
Dated:	.	APPELLANT
Sd/-   xXx ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
(No Verification)