HEIRS OF DECD MOHANLAL LAVJI Vs. MUKTABAI SHAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Judge Jamnagar holding that the petitioners who are the heirs of deceased Darji Mohanlal Lavji are not the tenants within the meaning of the word tenant as defined in sec. 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the suit premises which was let for the purpose of business and directing them to vacate the suit premises.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts are that the respondent is the owner of the suit premises. The suit premises was let to one Darji Mohanlal Lavji who was using the premises for the purpose of his tailoring business. The respondent had terminated his tenancy by giving a notice in the year 1958. After termination of the tenancy the respondent had filed a civil suit against Mohanlal Lavji for possession of the suit premises on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. In the said suit the respondent had also prayed for fixation of the standard rent. The suit with regard to the possession was dismissed and the standard rent of the suit premises was fixed. Mohanlal Lavji died on June 1 1964 The petitioners are the heirs of said Mohanlal Lavji and the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 455 of 1955 in the Court of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Jamnagar against the petitioners to recover the possession of the suit premises alleging that the tenancy of Mohanlal Lavji was terminated and after the termination he remained in possession of the premises as a statutory tenant. The right of statutory tenancy was personal to Mohanlal Lavji and on his death the petitioners had no right to remain in possession of the suit premises as the petitioners are not the tenants within the meaning of the word tenant as defined in sec. 5(11)(c) of the Act. It was alleged that the petitioners as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Mohanlal Lavji are bound to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent together with the arrears of rent. In the alternative one respondent claimed possession of the suit premises on the ground that she bona fide required the suit premises for carrying on the business of silk dying and printing works. The petitioners filed their written statement and contended that Mohanlal Lavji was not the only tenant in respect of the suit premises; that it was not true that his tenancy was terminated and that he was a statutory tenant; that it was not true that after his death the petitioners had not acquired tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises; that the petitioners were carrying on the business in the suit premises during the life time of Mohanlal Lavji and carried on the business in the said premises even after his death; that the respondent had accepted rent from the petitioners after the death of Mohanlal Lavji and thus they have been accepted as tenants and it is not open to the respondent to contend that the petitioners are not the tenants in respect of the suit premises. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the suit premises and the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove that the premises were required for her bona fide personal requirements. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1967 in the Court of the District Judge Jamnagar. The appeal was heard by the learned Assistant Judge who came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not the tenants as defined in sec. 5(11)(c) of the Act and therefore were not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Act. The learned appellate Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove that the suit premises was required by her for her personal bona fide requirement. The learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal and passed a decree of eviction against the petitioners. This revision application came up for hearing before a single Judge of this Court who has referred the same to the Division Bench.

(3.) Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioners raised the following contentions:-