ISHWARLAL THAKORDAS BANGALI Vs. PATEL VALJIBHAI NATTHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision Application filed by the original plaintiffs who had filed Small Causes Suit No. 984 of 1976 in the court of the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes at Surat. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the property in Ward no.7 Nondh nos 1520/1521 situated in the city of Surat. Defendant is the tenant of the property bearing Nondh No.1521 at the monthly rent of Rs.315.00. According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 was in arrears of rent from 1.7.1973 and therefore a demand was sent to him on 5.4.1976. Defendant no.1 did not comply with the same and therefore, according to the plaintiffs the defendant no.1 was required to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 has illegally sub let the premises to defendant no.2. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession.

(2.) . The defendant nos 1 and 2 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement at exhs.15 and 16. It was contended that defendant no.1 is the tenant of the property bearing Nondh No.1521 at the rate of Rs. 210/p.m. It was denied that any additional room was given to the defendant no.1 and that the rent on that ground was increased to Rs. 315.00 p.m. but it was Rs. 210.00. It was stated that the contractual rent of Rs. 210.00 is the standard rent and it is excessive. According to the defendant no.1 after the receipt of the demand notice he had preferred Application No. 479 of 1976 for fixation of standard rent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. According to him he had tendered the rent for the period of 9 months but the plaintiff had not given credit of the said amount. According to him, he has paid the amount upto 30.9.94 and rent is due from 1.10.74. That after the receipt of the demand notice he has tendered all the arrears of rent along with the reply but the advocate for the plaintiffs refused to accept the same. According to the defendant no.1 he was always ready and willing to pay the rent. He also denied the allegation about subletting According to him, defendant no.2 is his cousin brother and that he was never in occupation of the part of the suit premises. Aforesaid suit for possession was accordingly denied by the defendant.

(3.) The Trial Court consolidated the Small Cause Suit No.84 of 1976 with the Rent Application No. 479 of 1976 and after recording the evidence and after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to get possession of the suit premises on the ground of subletting. Therefore, the suit for possession was dismissed by the Trial Court. However the Trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 828.00against the defendant no.1 towards arrears of rent. The standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs.23.00 in the Rent Application No.479 of 1976. Accordingly the suit as well as the standard rent application were disposed of by the Trial Court.