JAYANTILAL A KHATRI Vs. BHAGWANDAS V KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application is taken up for arguments at admission stage.

(2.) This Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( in short " the Act") filed by original plaintiff of Rent Suit No. 125 of 1998 filed in the Court of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad challenging the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of judgment Ex.23 dated 31st July, 1998 rendered by Second Joint District Judge, Vadodara (who will be hereinafter referred to as " the Appellate Judge") in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1998. Herein this Civil Revision Application, revision petitioner was plaintiff, while revision opponents Nos. 1 to 5 were defendants in Rent Suit No. 125 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff and defendants respectively.

(3.) The facts leading to this present Civil Revision Application in a nutshell are as follows:- As per the case of the plaintiff, there is one trust named and known as "Vadodariya Kshatriya Gnatiwadi Ane Kuldevi Mandir Trust" registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Said trust will be referred to hereinafter as " the trust" for the sake of convenience. As per the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the trustees of the said trust. As stated in plaint, defendant nos. 1 and 2 had shown their un-willingness to join as plaintiffs in the suit, plaintiff has joined them as defendant nos. 1 and 2. As per the case of the plaintiff, on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 31st March, 1998, only three trustees were alive and others were dead, and that three trustees who are alive, are present plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The trust and its property described in Para 2 of the plaint and one of the parts of that property have been let to defendant nos. 3 to 5, and therefore, defendant nos. 3 to 5 are the tenants and the trust is a landlord. As per the case of the plaintiff, defendant no.1 has mismanaged the affairs of the administration of the trust and that defendant no.1 was managing affairs of the trust as per his own whims, as a result of which he has given a permission in name of trust to defendant nos. 3 to 5 for carrying out certain repairs in the suit premises pursuant to the application dated 9th May, 1997 submitted to trust by defendant nos. 3,4 and 5. As it appears from Para 4 of the plaint, plaintiff has not given any consent for permission which has been granted by defendant no.1 to the defendant nos. 3 to 5. As alleged in the plaint, one resolution was passed in the Meeting of the trustees of the trust and on that resolution, signatures of defendant no.2 as well as plaintiff were taken by defendant no.1, and therefore, that resolution is incorrect and not binding to present plaintiff as well as defendant no.2. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has not given any consent to defendant no.1 for permission being granted to defendant nos. 3 to 5. Thus, by challenging the resolution of the trustees of the trust and the permission granted by defendant no.1, the plaintiff filed Rent Suit No. 125 of 1998 in the Court of Small Causes, Baroda and mainly for one relief that his suit be decreed for possession of suit premises which have been let to defendant nos. 3 to 5 and space on which some rooms have been constructed towards the northern side of the property (by demolishing the construction of rooms) directing defendant nos. 3 to 5 to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the trust, and secondly for the orders for the costs of the suit. It may be noted that plaintiff has not prayed for any injunction either perpetual or mandatory or prohibitory in nature in the plaint. Still however he submitted one interim application Ex.5 in the suit on the date on which the suit was filed. By that application Ex.5, plaintiff prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendant nos. 3 to 5 from making any further construction in the suit premises through their agents, servants etc. On 31st March, 1998, the day on which said application Ex. 5 was presented, the learned Judge of the trial court did not pass any order granting ad-interim injunction but by his order, he directed defendant nos. 3 to 5 to maintain status quo position of the suit premises as per Commissioner's report till 13th April, 1998. Thereafter that application Ex.5 was taken up for hearing by the learned Judge of the trial court. After hearing the arguments of the learned advocates of both the parties, the learned Judge of the trial court was pleased to come to a conclusion that plaintiff has no prima facie case to obtain an interim injunction as prayed for only in Ex.5, and ultimately, by passing his order dt. 30th April, 1998, he was pleased to dismiss the said application Ex.5 of the plaintiff.