ISMAILBHAI HAJI IBRAHIMBHAI MALEK Vs. GORDHANBHAI HATHIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rasulbhai Abdulbhai Fala-original petitioner No. 1 since deceased has filed this Civil Revision Application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1980 passed by the learned Jt. District Judge, Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1979. The learned Jr. District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 28.3.1979 in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1976 filed by Rasulbhai Abdulbhai.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are as under : 2.1 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs petitioners and respondents are the trustees of the trust known as "Allabax Kabarstan. The said trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1959. There is a property-which is portion of land situated at the Kabarstan. The land is situated at Nadiad admeasuring 200 ft north and 50 ft. east west. On the west of the suit land there is one Kans, On the west of the land there is one Kans, on the sought of the land there is one road, on the east of the land there is Kabarstan land and on the north also there is Kabarstan land (said land is referred to as the Suit property). It is the case of the plaintiff that the trustees of Allabax Kabarstan has given this open land on lease to Gordhanbhai Hathibhai Purohit-defendant No. 1 in this case. (It may be stated here that in the original record the name of defendant No. 1 is shown as Gordhanbhai Hathibhai Patel but his real name is Gordhanbhai Hathibhai Purohit). The defendant No. 1 was given this land on a monthly rent of Rs. 83.50 p. and a lease deed was executed on 23.6.1968 which has been produced on record at Exh. 26 as per the terms and conditions of the said document all taxes including the education cess were to be paid by the tenant. It has been stated in the said document that the land is not to be given to anybody i.e. the land is not to be sub let to anybody in this behalf. Only the tenant was entitled to use the suit land and the tenant was liable to pay rent in this behalf.

(3.) As the defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to pay the rent the plaintiff No. 1 was constrained to address a notice dated 29.8.1975 (Exh. 27) demanding the arrears of rent in this behalf. In the said notice it has been stated that the defendant No. 1 has failed and neglected to pay the rent from 23.6.1968. Defendant No. 1 has constructed about 36 rooms on the suit land and said rooms have been given on lease to other people and thereby sublet the premises in this behalf. In view of the same the defendant No. 1 was in arrears from 6 months amount to Rs. 374A and thereafter the tenancy was determined and accordingly terminated the tenancy of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff landlord directed that the tenant should hand over the site by 23.9 1975 or on the completion of the period by which according to the defendant that his tenancy has come to an end. The defendant No. 1-tenant replied to the said notice on 22.9.1975. By the said reply the defendant No. 1 has denied the allegations raised by the plaintiff. He has also denied that he was a monthly tenant. He stated that he was an yearly tenant and he was paying the yearly rent of Rs. 960.00 and thereafter the monthly rent has been increased to Rs. 1000/- and he has already paid the rent upto 31.3.1975. He has stated that the land was taken on lease for construction of rooms on the said land and he has constructed the rooms accordingly and incurred lot of expenses in this behalf and he has not constructed the said rooms illegally. He has denied that he was a tenant in arrears from 31.3.1975 and he has raised the dispute of standard in this behalf. He has stated that the standard rent cannot be more than Rs. 200/- per year. According to him the landlord is entitled to demand the rent only on 30.3.1976/- He has denied subletting the premises to other persons.