VORA KADARBHAI MAJIDBHAI Vs. MANSURI JUSABHAI SHAKURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revisions are proposed to be disposed of by a common Judgment.

(2.) The facts giving rise to Civil Revision Application No.1210 of 1988 are as under : The Revisionist Kadarbhai Majidbhai Vora has filed this Revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act alleging that the Decree passed by the trial Court was wrongly disturbed by the Lower Appellate Court. The brief facts are that the plaintiff revisionist is the owner of T.No.1/2, Survey No. 24 situated in Mehsana Sidhpur Bazar. One room on the first floor was let out to the defendant respondent on monthly rent of Rs.10.50 ps. The defendant and his brother Fakirmahmad by making costly expenses constructed their own house in Dabgharvas near Lake in Mehsana. The Suit for eviction of the respondent was filed on five grounds. The first was acquisition of suitable accommodation for his residence by the tenant - respondent. The other was bonafide reasonable personal requirement. The third was illegal subletting or transfer or assignment in any other manner of interest in the tenancy by the tenant-in-chief, to his brother. The fourth was on the ground of making permanent alteration and raising structures without written permission of the landlord revisionist and the last for causing nuisance and annoyance in the suit premises. Notice dated 12.11.1979 was served terminating the tenancy, but it remained uncomplied with hence the Suit for eviction was filed.

(3.) The respondent contested the Suit, but denied the above averments made against him. He pleaded that he is tenant of one room on the first floor since the time of previous owner Usmanbhai Umarkhan from whom the property was purchased by the plaintiff - revisionist about 2 years before the institution of the suit. It was denied that the rent was due from 31.12.1979. The rent for January and February 1980 was not accepted by the landlord. Thereafter it was sent by Money Order which was refused. It was denied that the Suit accommodation is required bonafide by the landlord for his personal occupation. Allegation of making permanent structural alterations was also denied. It was also denied that the defendant has acquired or built suitable residential accommodation for himself.