JITENDRA CORPORATION Vs. CHINUBHAI BHAICHANDRA SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Civil Revision Applications are directed against the common order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal Nos. 398 of 1980 and 399 of 1980. The facts leading to the present Civil Revision Applications are as under.

(2.) The petitioner is the original plaintiff of H.R.P. Suit Nos. 2471 of 1976 and 5414 of 1976. The opponent herein is the defendant of both the aforesaid suits. So far as the Suit No. 2471 of 1976 is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that, it took on lease as the partnership business, land of T.P.S. No. 3, Final Plot No. 104/1 near Income Tax Office, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The said property is a large property namely Jitendra Chambers which consists of shops, offices and such other premises of different size. These premises were thereafter sold by the plaintiff to different persons having executed in favour of them registered sale deeds. As superstructures only were sold by the plaintiff to such purchasers, such purchasers have acquired long terms lease from its original owner. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the tenant of the land of Shop No. 7 at the rental amount of Rs. 28/- per month and shop No. 8 at the rate of Rs. 151- per month. The defendant had agreed to pay the rent from 15-7-1972 onwards and he also agreed to pay the interest on the rent due outstanding at the rate of 12% per annum. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1972 to 31-9-1976 amounting to Rs. 1007/- and inspite of the demand notice, the same was not paid. The present suit is, therefore, filed to recover Rs. 1007/- coupled with Rs. 101/- being the amount of interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. According to him, lease deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of its original owner and on such land, the property was erected and considering such payment of rent by the plaintiff to the original owner, the rent which the plaintiff recovers from all the occupants of the shops and offices is exorbitant and much excessive, and therefore, he prayed for fixation of standard rent. He also denied the liability to pay the taxes.