VINAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the landlady is directed against the judgment and order dated July 23, 1999 passed by a learned single judge of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1692/1998. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision application filed by Defendant No. 1, the tenant (Respondent No. 1 before this Court), set aside the judgments and orders passed by the trial judge and a division bench of the Small Causes Court and dismissed the Appellants application claiming eviction of Defendant No. 1 from the suit premises, besides arrears of rent.

(2.) The trial judge had allowed the Appellants application and granted a decree of eviction in her favour on the ground that the suit premises had not been used by the tenant, without reasonable cause, for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. In appeal against the judgment of the trial judge preferred by Defendant No. 1 and the cross-objection filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant, the division bench of the Small Causes Court not only affirmed the finding of the trial court on non-user of the suit premises for a period of six months preceding the filing of the suit but also held the tenant liable for eviction on the ground that he had inducted in the suit premises Defendant No. 2 as a sub-tenant. In the revision filed by Defendant No. 1, however, the High Court held that both the findings arrived at by the trial court and the appeal court were bad and erroneous. It, accordingly, set aside the decree of eviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appeal court against Defendant No. 1 and dismissed the suit of the Appellant-Plaintiff.

(3.) The Plaintiff-Appellant is the owner of bungalow No. 6 situated in Pathik Society, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. A part of the property, being the middle garage, bearing M.C. No. 145-6-1, and F.P. No. 11-11-A-6-1 was let out to Defendant No. 1 on June 1, 1974 for carrying on grocery business on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- plus municipal taxes, education cess etc. On June 9, 1977, a notice (Exh.68) was given to Defendant No. 1 on behalf of the Appellant stating that he was in default in payment of the monthly rent and the demised shop was not in use since one year prior to the date of the notice. He was, accordingly, asked to vacate the shop and hand over its possession to the Plaintiff. The notice did not have the desired result and, consequently, on July 18, 1977, the Appellant filed the suit (H.R.P. Suit No. 2866/1977) seeking a decree of eviction and for payment of arrears of rent and mesne profits against Defendant No. 1 on grounds of default in payment of rent, bonafide personal need and non-user of the suit shop by Defendant No. 1, without any reasonable cause, for a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit. It was after the filing of the suit but before the summons was served on Defendant No. 1 that, he gave his reply (Exh.67) to the Plaintiffs notice on August 23, 1977. In the reply, he did not expressly controvert the allegation that the suit premises were not in use since one year before the date of the notice.