ZUBEDABAI AMAD Vs. SUNNI VOHRA IBRAHIM HAJI ABDULKARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the petitioners who are the original defendants of Regular Civil Suit No.9/74 by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioners are the original defendants against whom, the respondent had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit NO.9/74 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Jetpur, for getting the decree for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that the suit premises was let out to the defet. No.1 at the monthly rate of Rs.5 and rent note to that effect was executed. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the deft. No.1 was in arrears of rent from 30th September, 1969 and inspite of notice of demand, she did not pay the arrears of rent from 1/10/1969. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the deft. NO.1 has illegally sublet the premises to the deft. Nos.2 and 3 and deft. No.1 has left Dhoraji and had also given an assurance that she would hand over the possession of the rented premises as soon as deft. Nos. 2 and 3 get another alternative accommodation. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the deft. No.1 has not used the premises for more than six months, immediately preceding the date of the suit and that she has acquired alternative accommodation. Ultimately after the registered notice which was sent by the plaintiff to the deft. NO.1, and the deft. NO.1 having failed to comply with the same, the aforesaid suit was filed for getting the decree for possession of the suit premises on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) The suit of the landlord was resisted by the defendants by filing joint written statement at Ex.13. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff for possession. It was stated by the defendants in their written statement that all the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiff and that there was no question of any subletting by deft. NO.1 to deft. Nos. 2 and 3. The title of the plaintiff was also denied by the defendants. It was also stated that the premises is used and there is no substance in the ground of non-user. It was the specific case of the deft. Nos. 2 and 3 from beginning that deft. nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters and deft. No.1 had left the suit premises for a short time on the medical ground and that she has subsequently returned back in the suit premises, on the aforesaid grounds the suit was resisted by the defendants.