ABDULKARIM MAHMADBHAI KHALIPHA Vs. SULEMAN HAJI ISMAILBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Suleman Haji Ismailbhai the respondent in the petition before me is the owner of the suit premises wherein the defendant Abdul Karim Mahammadbhai Khalipha who is the petitioner herein is a tenant in the two rooms on the first floor of the building. The responddent filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of the demised premises on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant in arrears of rent for over six months. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes Baroda for the reasons stated in his judgment came to the conclusion that the case before him was covered by-sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act and not by sec. 12 (3) (a) of the same Act and consequently he dismissed the suit of the respondent so far as the prayer for possession was concerned With the rest of the order of the learned trial Judge I am not concerned.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge by which the prayer for possession was dismissed the respondent filed an appeal h the Court of the District Judge at Baroda being Reg. Civil Appeal No. 125/ 1977 The appeal was decided by the learned Joint District Judge Baroda by his judgment and order dated 17th of April 1978 whereby he allowed the appeal and passed an ejectment decree against the petitioner herein. The learned Appellate Judge directed the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises on or before 17-10-1978.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Appellate Judge the petitioner (the original tenant-defendant) has filed the present Revision Application.