GULAM MOHAMMAD MUSABHAI Vs. UJIBEN MULABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the party -in -person - original Plaintiff challenging the judgment and order dated 19.01.1999 passed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 2513 of 1990 and the judgment and order dated 01.01.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judge, in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1999 preferred by the Plaintiff by confirming the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 2513 of 1990.

(2.) THE applicant is the party -in -person -original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the legal heir of the original Defendant. The applicant appearing as party -in -person - original Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant stating that the Plaintiff is the owner of the chawl situated in the City of Ahmedabad in Gomtipur Ward behind Topi Mills, known as 'Musabhai's chawl' and out the said chawl, the premises bearing M.C. No. 27/227 and bearing City Survey No. 143/234 is in possession of the Defendant -tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 9/ -. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff on the ground of arrears of rent and omission on the part of the Defendant to pay the same in spite of the notice of demand. The Plaintiff thereafter amended the suit as per the order passed by the learned trial Judge below application at Exh. 33 and thereby he adduced a new ground for eviction on the basis of the allegations that the Defendant has encroached upon the land belonging to the applicant -Plaintiff on the western side and thereby constructed one big room without the consent of the Plaintiff. The learned trial Court after framing and issue and appreciating the evidence on record found that the tenant was neither in arrears of rent for more than six months nor he has made any construction on the suit premises. The learned trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 19.01.1990 by dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) THE applicant appearing as party -in -person submitted that the Defendant -tenant was in arrears of rent for exceeding six months on the date of notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and the Defendant had not tendered the rent then due within one month from the date of demand notice under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act nor had he raised a dispute of standard rent within one month from the date of receipt of the said notice. He also states that the Defendants have built permanent structure in the suit premises without the written consent of the Petitioner.