GULABSING SARDARSING THAKORE Vs. POPATLAL CHHOTALAL JADAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original defendant against whom the respondent had filed the suit being H.R.P.Suit No.17/75 in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The case of the landlord in the said suit was that, he is the owner of the suit premises which is situated at Mirzapur Road, Ahmedabad. That the defendant No.2 is carrying his tailoring business in the name of the defendant No.1. That premises in question was hired by the defendant No.2 which is one room on the second floor of the suit building with the monthly rent of Rs.200.00 and taxes to be paid by the tenant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1.3.1974 and he has not paid the same inspite of the demand. He has also stated in the plaint that the tenant has changed the use of the premises and that the conduct of the defendant amounts to nuisance. Therefore, the suit was filed on the aforesaid grounds with the prayer for getting the decree for possession.

(2.) The defendant appeared in the suit by filing the written statement at Exh.11. It was alleged that, contractual rent of Rs.200.00 is excessive. It was also stated by the defendant that, he was ready and willing to pay the rent and other grounds were also denied by him, that is, change of user and nuisance.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed various issues at Exh.53 and thereafter, after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the standard rent of the suit premises was Rs.500.00 per month, plus taxes. Ultimately, on the ground of arrears of rent, the trial court passed the decree under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The aforesaid decree of the trial court was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by way of Civil Appeal No.150/79. The Appellate Bench by its order dated 2.11.1982 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial court. The present revision application has been filed by the defendant against the order of the Appellate Bench by which his appeal was dismissed.