PANDIT GANGARAM RAGHUNANDAN BHAIYA Vs. PATEL MOTIBHAI RAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed by the original defendant--the tenant who was aggrieved by the impugned judgment and degree passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge of Kaira at Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 143 of 1974 whereby the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the original defendant and allowed the cross-objections filed by the respondent-plaintiff by decreeing that along with the possession of the suit premises the respondent-plaintiff should recover the amount of R.375 instead of R.250/- decreed by the trial Court. The decree of the trial Court was modified to the said extent by the loser appellate Court It may be stated at this stage that the learned Civil Judge (J. D.). First Court Nadiad did accept the plaintiffs suit and directed the plaintiff to recover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit-house Adala and chowk. Suffice it to say that as there was an eviction decree against the defendant and hence the defendant has filed the present second appeal in this Court.

(2.) It may be stated at the very out set that in the instant case Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 did not apply to the facts of the present case.

(3.) The respondent owner is the owner of the property bearing C. P. No. 709-A situated at village Vadthal and had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 173 of 1971 in the trial Court for recovering the possessions of the premises and the arrears of rent against the appellant-defendant It was the plaintiffs case that he had become the owner of the entire suit pro- perty on 24/12/1970 as he had purchased the entire property for Rs. 25 0 It was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was the tenant in respect of one room and the Adala and the Chowk and that the originally the tenancy was for one year on payment of Rs. 125.00 for one year and that thereafter he had become the monthly tenant and since the property was purchased by the plaintiff the appellant-defendant had become the tenant of the plaintiff. The notice of attornment was also served upon the defendant by the plaintiff and it was alleged that the defendant was in arrears of rent from Maha Sud 5 of S.Y. 2024 and that the defendant did not pay the amount of arrears of rent. Under the circumstances the plaintiff did serve fifteen days notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy and called upon him to deliver the possession of the suit premises. The tenancy of the defendant was terminated by a notice dated 16/04/1971 and the monthly rent was Rs. 10-42ps. along with all taxes.