CHHOTALAL MAGANLAL Vs. LALUBHAI JAMNADS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's Revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against concurrent judgments and Decrees of the trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissing the Suit of the revisionist landlord for recovery of possession of the disputed portion from the respondents, but decreeing the Suit of the landlord for recovery of Rs.540.00 and fixing the standard rent at Rs.15.00 p.m.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this Revision are as under : The ground floor portion in dispute owned by the plaintiffs was let out to the defendant No.1 on monthly rent of Rs.15.00. The Suit for eviction of the defendants was filed on several grounds alleging that the Suit accommodation was reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiffs - landlords. Another ground was that the defendant No.1 - tenant had acquired suitable vacant accommodation for his residence. The third ground was that the defendant No.1 - tenant had not used the suit premises for more than six months immediately preceeding the date of filing of the Suit. The next ground was that the defendants were guilty of conduct which amounts to nuisance and annoyance to the present plaintiffs. The last ground was that the defendant No.1 was in arrears of rent for more than six months and he failed to pay the same within a month of service of notice of demand. Rs.540.00 were claimed as arrears of rent. It was alleged that the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 reside at Calcutta, but they wanted to come to reside at Surat where the disputed property is situated. The plaintiff No.2 Nagindas wanted to settle at Surat. Plaintiff No.1 did not keep good health at Calcutta so he also wanted to come to Surat to enjoy retired life at Surat. In this way it was alleged that the landlords required the Suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal use. Arrears of rent from 1.5.1958 was alleged to be due. Despite service of notice of demand the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3579.00 were not paid by the defendant No.1. Electricity charges were also not paid since 1969. It was alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 did not reside in the suit premises and it was not used by the defendant No.1 for residence. The defendant No.3 only used the suit premises for sleeping purpose in the night. He used to bring strangers in the suit premises who used to give threats to the plaintiff No.5. This conduct of the defendant No.3, according to the plaintiff, caused nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiffs and adjoining occupiers.

(3.) The Suit was resisted by the defendants No.1 & 3 through seperate written statement and by defendants No.2 & 4 through another written statement. They denied all these allegations and raised several pleas regarding validity of notice, and ownership of the plaintiffs. They also pleaded that the defendants No.2,3 & 4 became co-owners of the property hence the Suit for eviction against co-owners was not maintainable. The extent of tenanted accommodation was also challenged. They pleaded that they are the tenants of the ground floor as well as the first floor. Arrears of rent were also denied by the defendants, so also the electricity charges. According to the defendants the whole suit property on the ground floor and the first floor was let out at Rs.15.00 p.m.. but since the defendant No.1 handed over possession of the first floor to the plaintiff No.5 in the year 1969 the rent of the ground floor should be Rs.7.50 ps. p.m. It was denied that the defendant No.1 acquired alternative vacant accommodation. It was also denied that the defendant No.1 did not use the suit accommodation for a period of six months immediately before filing of the Suit. Allegation of nuisance was also denied.