NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DURLABHJI JAMNADASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner tenant is the insurance company against whom the respondent plaintiff had filed the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.356 of 1979 in the court of Small Causes at Rajkot for getting decree for possession on the ground of change of user of the suit premises as well as on the ground of non user of the suit premises for more than 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit . A decree was also sought for on the ground of personal and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff.

(2.) The Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said suit for possession. However, in appeal the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant has changed the user of the suit property by not using the same for the purpose for which it was let . The Appellate Court also found that there was also breach of the terms of tenancy by the defendant and on the aforesaid grounds, the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff was allowed and a decree for eviction was passed. The unsuccessful tenant has filed the present revision application challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of the the learned Appellate Judge passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1981.

(3.) The facts leading to the present revision application are as under: The plaintiff is the owner of the premises known as Durlabh Chambers, Dhebar Road, Rajkot. Two rooms on the first floor of the said property were let out to the insurance i.e. Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. in the year 1963. A rent note was executed at that time and as per the terms in the rent note, the suit premises was to be used for the purpose of business of of the defendant. Said Ruby Insurance Company was merged and amalgamated with the petitioner insurance company in the year 1973 when the General Insurance business was nationalised and accordingly the defendant National Insurance Company is the tenant of the suit premises since 1973 onwards. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit premises was let out to the defendant for the purpose of doing their insurance business. However the defendant has shifted its insurance business to other place known as 'National House' and therefore, according to the plaintiff since the defendant is not carrying on insurance business in the suit premises, the defendant has committed an act of breach of terms of tenancy. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is also not using the suit premises for more than 6 months immediately preceding the filing of the suit and therefore, on the aforesaid grounds i.e. breach of terms of the tenancy as well as for non user of the premises, eviction decree was sought for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also prayed for decree on the ground of personal and bonafide requirements of the plaintiff. The defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement exh.23. It was contended that there was no change of user or breach of terms of tenancy by the defendant. It was stated that Ruby Insurance Company was merged and amalgamated with the National Insurance Company. It was stated in the written statement that the suit premises is used for the purpose of the business of the insurance company and not for any other purpose. It was also the further case of the defendant that the suit premises is used in the true letter and spirit of the terms and conditions of the rent note and that therefore, there was neither any breach of the terms of tenancy nor any breach of the rent note or any breach of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act which can be attributed to the defendant. On the aforesaid groundd the suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant insurance company. It was also pointed out that looking to the expansion of insurance business, the defendant insurance company is still in need of the premises in question and therefore, if the decree for eviction is passed the defendant insurance company will suffer greater hardship. The last averment was in response to the prayer of the plaintiff for possession on the ground of bonafide requirements. Ultimately, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.