HARILAL J KANSARA Vs. KANTILAL P BUDHUBHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th September, 1986 passed by the District Judge, Bhuj in Regular Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1981 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhuj in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1978 by which the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision application are as under : 2.1 The present respondent-original plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 1978 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Bhuj against the present petitioners-original defendants. It was stated in the said suit that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant in arrears and the plaintiff rented the premises for his personal use and occupation. The defendant No. 1 sublet the suit premises to his father, the defendant No. 2, which was let out to defendant No. 1 for using it as a shop. As the said premise was not used as a shop but as a godwon, he committed breach of the terms and conditions of tenancy and, therefore, plaintiff prayed for possession of suit premises along with arrears of rent and mesne profit by way of the aforesaid civil suit. 2.2 Suit was contested by the present petitioners-original defendants denying all the allegations and also disputing the challenging the validity of the notice and further disputed regarding the standard rent. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court partly dismissed the suit for eviction of tenant and recovery of possession. However, it was partly decreed with regard to arrears of rent. 2.4 Against that, the respondent landlord preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1982. Only two points were urged before the Appellate Court. One was that the defendant No. 1 sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2 who is the father of the defendant No. 1 and the other was that by using the suit premises as godwon instead of shop, the defendant No. 1 committed breach of the terms of tenancy. As far as the first point i.e. sub letting, is concerned, the Appellate Court held it against the respondent-appellant against which the respondent did not file any revision or cross objection. Hence, the findings on the point of subletting need not be disturbed. As far as the second point i.e. using the suit premises as godown instead of shop is concerned, by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhuj in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1978 was reversed only on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 was using the suit premises as godown in breach of the terms and conditions of tenancy.

(3.) A short point arises for consideration before this Court is whether the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court for eviction of the revisionist on the ground of change of use can be sustained.