MANGALDAS DEVJIBHAI Vs. LALITKUMAR N DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Application filed by original defendant/tenant under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, ( for short the "Act"), challenging the correctness, legality, propriety and regularity of the Judgment Ex. 16 dated 28th January, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned appellate Judge), in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1984, whereby the learned appellate Judge was, by dismissing the appeal, pleased to confirm the Judgment Ex. 107 dated 8th March. 1984 rendered by the learned 2nd Joint civil Judge (J.D.), Surendranagar (who will be referred to hereafter as the learned Judge of the trial Court) in Regular Civil-Suit No. 221 of 1982. The learned Judge of the trial Court, by rendering his said Judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1982, allowed the plaintiff's suit directing the defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit godown to the plaintiff within one month from the date of his Judgment, and further directing the defendant to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff and bear his own.

(2.) Here in this Civil Revision Application, the revision petitioner was the original defendant/tenant and revision opponent was the original plaintiff/landlord in Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1982 before the trial Court, and therefore, the parties will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff and defendant respectively at appropriate places.

(3.) The facts leading to this prevent Civil Revision Application, in a nutshell, are as follows :- The plaintiff is an owner of suit godown (which will be referred to hereafter as the "suit premises") which is known as "Sayala-na-Utara" situated at Surendranagar. The said suit premises were let to the defendant for monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 40/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months and that the defendant neglected to make the payment of said rent due from him to the plaintiff within one month from date of receipt of his notice under Sec. 12(2) of the Act i.e. his case falling under Sec. 12(3)(a) of the Act. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately proceeding the date of the suit i.e. his case falling under Sec. 13(1)(k) of the Act. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff by addressing a suit notice Ex. 28 dated 9-6-1982, terminated the tenancy of the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1982 against the defendant mainly for relief of eviction of the defendant from suit premises. In that suit, plaintiff had advanced aforesaid two grounds for claiming a decree of eviction.