MODI BACHUBHAI SAKALCHAND Vs. MARIYAMBIBI NOORMOHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the applicant above named under Sec. 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred as Act for short) against the judgment and decree dated 19th August, 1996 recorded by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1985, dismissing the said appeal of the present applicant substantially and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1996 recorded by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 4150 of 1978 under which, the learned Judge dismissed the said suit of the present applicant-original plaintiff before the trial Court for possession of the rented property which is a shop situated in the City of Ahmedabad on Astodia Road, Nr. Bado Pole, Ahmedabad, which is more particularly described in para, 1 of the plaint.

(2.) The applicant above named instituted the above suit before the Small Causes Court, where, it was contended by the applicant that the said shop was let to one Noor Mohd. Gulamnabi. That he died, and thereafter, none from his family was using the said shop. That even the members of the family of the deceased were not carrying on business with the deceased at the time of his death, and therefore, under the provisions contained in Sec. 5(ii)(c)(ii) of the Act, the present opponents were not entitled to claim tenancy right in respect of the said shop, and therefore, they should be treated to be tres-passer and not tenants in respect thereof. The applicant further contended that the suit shop was required by him reasonably and bona fidely for his personal occupation The applicant further contended that the opponents had unlawfully transferred or sub-let or assigned their interest in the suit shop, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to a decree for possession of the said shop.

(3.) The suit was resisted and apart from other things, the opponents claimed tenancy rights in place of deceased tenant of the said shop.