PRABHUDAS NATHALAL Vs. RAMANLAL BHAIKBHAI FADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff of H.R.P. Suit No.859/75. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff against the present respondent tenant for getting decree for possession of the suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a tenant of the rear portion of the premises bearing Census No.214/D/5/1 in the city of Ahmedabad at the monthly rent of Rs.42.00. According to the plaintiff the defendant tenant is in arrears of rent from 11.3.1974 and inspite of repeated demand, he failed to pay up the arrears of rent. The plaintiff therefore gave demand notice under Sec.12 (2) of the Rent Act and the defendant having failed to comply with the same, ultimately the aforesaid suit was filed for getting possession of the suit premises as well as for getting arrears of rent.

(2.) The defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement at Ex.11. According to defendant the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had purchased the suit property after 1964 and he had not given any particular as to how he has purchased the suit property from the previous owner. According to the defendant one Keshavlal was the original owner of the suit property and he was recovering the rent through his manager Parshottamdas and that the plaintiff has paid the rent to said Parshottamdas. According to the defendant the demand of rent of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.40.00p.m. plus electricity charges was not the correct demand as he was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.40.00p.m. inclusive of municipal taxes. According to the defendant the standard rent of the suit premises cannot be more than Rs.10.00p.m. It is the say of the defendant that inspite of repeated demand, the plaintiff has failed to give any satisfactory evidence to the defendant to prove his ownership over the suit property. That he had sent M.O. of Rs.480.00 to the plaintiff but he had refused the same. Therefore on the aforesaid grounds, suit was resisted by the defendant in the Written Statement.

(3.) From the pleadings the trial court framed necessary issues at Ex.14. The trial court came to the conclusion that the standard rent of the suit premises is Rs.42.00p.m. It was found that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 11.3.1974 and that he was not ready and willing to pay the rent. Therefore on the aforesaid grounds the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and decree for arrears of rent was also passed to the tune of Rs.529.00 by the learned judge of Small Causes Court No.7, Ahmedabad. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree for possession the defendant-tenant carried the matter further in appeal by way of preferring the appeal being Civil Appeal No.318/79. The aforesaid appeal was heard by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The appellate court was of the opinion that since the plaintiff had not shown necessary documents to the defendant about his ownership over the suit property, and under that circumstances if the tenant had not paid the rent to him, then in such circumstances, tenant can be said to be ready and willing to pay the rent. The appellate bench accordingly allowed the appeal of the defendant and decree for possession which was passed by the trial court was set aside and accordingly the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the appellate bench. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the appellate bench is impugned herein in the present revision application by the original plaintiff.