CHANDRAKANT MADHAVRAO BHAIBER Vs. GAJENDRAKUMAR SUNDERLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the house known as Killeders Haveli situated on the Gendi Gate Raod at Baroda. The house consists of ground-floor first-floor and second floor. There are two tenants on each of the floors. The tenants of the ground floor have a separate common latrine and bath-room for their use. The tenants on the first and second floor have a common latrine and bath room on the first floor for their use. The opponent was the tenant in respect of one room on the second floor. This room was rented by the petitioner to the opponent for his residence. In the beginning of the tenancy the opponent stayed with his mother who resided therein for 3 or 3 1/2 month. The opponent is a bachelar and carried on the business of taking contract for doing printing work for the cotton mills at BarodaThe opponent started this business some time after he came to reside in the premises. The other tenants on the first and second floors have in all 15 members in their family. The opponent had to pay Rs. 50/as rent for the suit premises. The premises was taken on rent on September 5 1963 and the opponent paid the rent of the first month. He did not pay rent thereafter and therefore the petitioner gave a notice on March 18 1964 terminating the tenancy of the opponent on the ground of non-payment of rent. The opponent did not pay arrears of rent and therefore the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 782 of 1964 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda. During the course of the trial the petitioner amended the plaint and contended that he was entitled to possession of the suit premises from the defendant as the defendant was using the premises for the purpose other than the residence that the opponent was guilty of conduct which was a nuisance to the adjoining neighbours or occupiers and that the opponent had given the whole or a part of the premises on licence for monetary considerations without the permission of the landlord. The allegation of the plaintiff in the plaint was also that the suit premises was let to the opponent for personal residence but he was using the said premises for boarding his workers. It was further alleged that these workers were brought from Ahmedabad for his business purposes and the opponent had to bear their boarding and lodging expences at Baroda. Giving shelter to his workers and using the property for their lodging and boarding purposes amounted to a change of user. The opponent also gained monetarily because he had not to pay the workers their lodging and boarding charges as he used to shelter his workers in the suit premises. It was further alleged that there was only one bath room and latrine for the use of the tenants on the first and second floors and as the opponent allowed these workers to reside in the suit premises they were using the bath room and latrine which caused inconvenience to adjoining tenants. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that there was a change in the user of the premises or that he was making monetary gain by giving premises on license to his workers or that inconveniencc or annoyance was caused to the adjoining neighbours because he permitted his workers to reside in the premises.

(2.) The trial Court held that the allegation of the plaintiff that the opponent was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months was not proved. In respect of other grounds of the eviction the learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and passed a decree of eviction against the defendant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1965 in the Court of the District Judge Baroda. The learned appellate Judge tame to the conclusion that the defendant was not in arrears of rent for more than 6 months. With respect co other grounds of eviction pleaded by the plaintiff the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to prove the same. The learned appellate Judge therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff It is against this judgment and decree that this revision application has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The facts which are not disputed are that in all there are 4 tenants residing on the first and second floors of the suit premises. The total number of family members of the tenant other than the opponent is 15. There is one common bath room and a latrine for the use of tenants on the first and second floors The premises was let to the opponent for his residence and initially he and his mother resided in the premises. The mother of the opponent left the premises 39 months thereafter. The opponent carried on business of keeping contracts of printing works in the cotton mills and for that purpose he used to bring workers from Ahmedabad and they were kept in the premises. The opponent was under the obligation to provide for the boarding charges of these workers. If those workers were not allowed to stay in the suit premises the opponent had to pay boarding charges to the workers or had to take or rent some suitable premises for their residence. It is necessary to refer to the finding of facts arrived at by the lower Courts. The first and most relevant finding is that the opponent was using the suit premises for keeping his 15 workers and thus providing boarding facilities to them. The opponent provided this facility for a continuous period of 2 or 3 weeks at a stretch in one month. The number of family members of the tenants other than the opponent came to about 15. There was only one privy and bath-room for the tenants and occupiers of the first and second floors of the suit premises. These are the findings of fact based on the evidence on record and therefore binding on this Court. ... ... . . ... ... . ...