RAMESHKUMAR CHHOTALAL SHAH Vs. PATEL VARANASIBHAI SHIVRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30th September 2003 passed by the Joint District Judge, Banaskantha, confirming the judgment and order dated 29th November 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deesa in Regular Civil Suit No. 175 of 1989, whereby the trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the applicant herein.

(2.) IT is the case of the applicant that the applicant -landlord, who is original Appellant -Plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 175 of 1989 for possession of the suit premises prescribed in paragraph 3 of the original plaint on the ground of arrears of rent and for amount of arrears and mesne profit against the Respondent -tenant, who is original Respondent -Defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Deesa, which ultimately came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the applicant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1995 before the Court of 2nd Joint District Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, present Revision Application.

(3.) MR . T.V. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the notice at Exhibit 52 is not as per the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); that the Courts below have erred in holding that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act as well as under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is also required; that the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit falls within the purview of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act; that the Courts below have erred in presuming that the opponent ought not to have refused the suit notice if the notice of atonement had been issued by the applicant previously and that when the opponent has paid the arrears of rent, the applicant is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property. Mr. Shah has also read over paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court.