AHMEDABAD ROADWAYS PVT LTD Vs. SAMIR RAJNIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners - original defendants have filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.5615 of 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.241 of 1981.

(2.) The Civil Revision Application was admitted and rule was issued on 17.03.1988. Interim relief was granted in terms of paragraph 5 (B) whereby the execution, operation and further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.5615 of 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.241 of 1981 were stayed.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the plaintiff had filed HRP Suit No.5615 of 1976 claiming possession of the suit premises together with an amount of Rs.6176.37 ps. towards rent, mesne profits and tax etc. The plaintiffs had averred that they have purchased the suit premises along with other property from its original owners on 17.02.1973 under a Regd. Sale Deed and since then, they have become the owners of the suit premises. The suit premises was let out to the defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the name of the defendant No.1 i.e. M/s. Ahmedabad Roadways Private Limited at monthly rent of Rs.85 plus tax. It was agreed by them that they would not sublet, assign or transfer the suit premises to anybody else and would pay the rent regularly. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 have paid the rent upto 31.03.1973 and they were in arrears of the rent from 01.04.1973 and have also not paid the taxes for the year 1973 - 74 to 1976 - 77. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed Rs.3570 towards rent from 01.04.1973 to 30.09.1976 and also claimed Rs.1362.47 towards municipal taxes and Rs.803.90 towards education cess, total amounting to Rs.5736.37 ps. The defendants have become tenants in arrears for a period of more than six months and hence, they were served with the notice dated 19.10.1976 whereby their tenancy was terminated and they were called upon to hand over the possession of the suit premises. But they did not act on the same and hence, the suit was filed.