SURESHKUMAR JAGDISHCHANDRA AND COMPANY Vs. PRABBHUDAS HIMMATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision under section 29(2) of Bombay Rent Act against the non-current findings recorded by the lower appellate court and reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court refusing to pass decree for eviction against the revisionist.

(2.) The brief facts are that the shop in dispute is owned by the plaintiff-landlord-Prabhudas Himmatlal. It was let out by him to the defendant firm--M/s Sureshkumar Jagdishchandra & Co on monthly rent of Rs.65.00. It was alleged that the defendant had illegally sub-let the suit accommodation or had transferred or assigned interest in the suit accommodation to someother persons who are occupying the shop and running their own business. This was one of the grounds seeking decree for eviction of the tenant. Another ground was that the tenant had not used the premises in suit continuously for a period of six months before the institution of the suit, hence, also he was liable to be evicted. The third ground was that the suit shop is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff-landlord to carry on his own business and on these three grounds eviction of the tenant was sought.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant-tenant-firm denying all these three allegations and also raising a dispute of standard rent. The dispute of standard rent is not material because the decree for eviction has not been sought on the ground that the tenant failed to pay more than 6 months rent after service of notice of demand and within a period of one month of service of such notice. It was, however, denied by the tenant that the premises was sub-let or that it was not used by the tenant for a period of six months before the institution of the suit. It was also denied that the suit shop is reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff-landlord for his own use to run his business.