DARJI AMARSHI LALJI Vs. SHAH JETHALALA PRABHUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Application filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( in short " the Act") by the original defendant no.2 Darji Amarsinh Lalji in Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1979 which was pending on the file of Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Dholaji. He has challenged the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of the judgment Ex.13 rendered by Assistant Judge, Rajkot (who will be referred to hereinafter as " the learned Judge) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 1983, whereby the appeal preferred by original defendant no.2 was dismissed meaning thereby decree passed by the learned Judge of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1979 qua defendant no.2 was confirmed. It may be noted that the learned Judge of the trial court had also passed a decree for eviction of suit premises against defendant no.1 Darji Dhanji Shamji but he has not preferred any appeal against the decree passed against him.

(2.) The facts leading to this present Civil Revision Application in a nutshell are as under:-

(3.) The defendant no.2 appeared before the trial court and resisted the suit by filing a written statement Ex.40, wherein the defendant no.2 has denied practically all the pleadings of the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint. It is the case of the defendant no.2 that the suit property was taken on lease by him and the defendant no.1 was never a tenant in the suit property. It is further the case of the defendant no.2 that as a middle man, the defendant no.1 recommended the plaintiff to let the suit property on lease to the defendant no.2. Thus, the defendant no. 1 has never transferred or assigned the suit property to the defendant no.2. It is further the case of the defendant no.2 that defendant no.2 has never refused to pay the rent. He was paying the rent but the plaintiff was not issuing the receipts, and the plaintiff has come out with a false case by alleging that the rent is due to him. The defendant no.2 has made a payment of rent for the period upto 31st December, 1979. In short, the defendant no.2 has denied practically the entire case of the plaintiff which he pleaded in the plaint.