SANMUKHLAL K DARJI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Assistant Judge, at Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1982, dated April 30, 1983, arising out of a judgment and decree passed by learned civil Judge (J.D.), at Vyara, in Regular Civil, Suit No. 1 of 1979, on December 31, 1981, has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant is the owners/landlord of houses Nos. 261, 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 of Vyara Nagar Panchayat and four rooms of the first floor were rented to the respondents for running a school on a monthly rent of Rs. 56/-. The defendant is the District Panchayat, which ran this school in the properties in issue. The appellant preferred a Regular civil suit against the respondent for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required for personal and bona fide use/occupation. The suit was also for recovery of Rs. 167/- as arrears of rent and for mesne profits. The suit was preferred after giving a notice.

(3.) The case of the defendant was mainly of denial. It was contended further in the written statement by the defendant-respondent that notice as required under Sec. 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was not given. It was also contended that the trial Court did not have jurisdiction. The ground for greater hardship was also pressed by the respsondent-defendant. The trial Court, considering the contentions raised by rival sides, raised the following issues :- "(I) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises are reasonably and bona fide required by him for occupation by himself as averred in plaint para 3? (1A) Whether plaintiff proves that he is the only owner of the suit premises if not what is its effect on this suit? (1B) Whether the suit is maintainable without statutory notice under Sec. 320 of Gujarat Panchayat Act? (2) What is due from the defendant towards the rent and mesne profit for the use and occupation of the suit premises? (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties? (4) What is the standard rent of the suit premises? (5) To whom greater hardship would be caused if decree is passed or refused? (6) Whether the defendants' tenancy is rightly terminated? (7) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? (7-A) Whether the defendant proved that the suit premises valued more than Rs. 1,00,000/- as contended in the amended written statement? If yes, what is its effect on this suit? (8) What order and decree? After considering evidence of rival sides, the trial Court gave findings on the above issues as under : (1) In negative. (l.A) Not pressed. (l.B) In affirmative. (2) . Rs. 168.00. (3 to 5) Not pressed. (6) In affirmative. (7) Plaintiff is entitled to decree of eviction and arrears of rent. (7A) Not pressed. (8) As per final order. and, ultimately, decreed the suit.