RASILABEN Vs. MANSUKHBHAI LAXMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 29th July 1998 passed by the lower Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1989 as well as the judgment and decree dated 20th February 1989 passed by the Small Causes Court No.4, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No.1381 of 1982.

(2.) IT is the case of the applicant that the applicant, who was the original plaintiff-landlord, filed H.R.P. Suit No.1381 of 1982 against the opponent-original defendant for recovery of rent and possession of the suit premises. IT is the case of the applicant that the opponent is a tenant in respect of the shop bearing No.6-B situated at Nikol Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad, having rent of Rs.75/- per month, exclusive of all taxes. The suit shop was rented to the opponent for his tailoring business which was being run in the name and style of ?Alap Tailors?. The opponent paid the rent upto 19th November 1979 and he was in arrears of rent since 20th November 1979. IT is further the case of the applicant that the opponent, without the consent of the applicant encroached the land admeasuring about 4' in the southern side and thus made construction of permanent nature in it. The southern side marginal land was to be kept open and to be used as a passage. However, the opponent made illegal construction on it and thereby committed breach of condition of the tenancy. The applicant further came with the case that the suit premises is reasonably and bona fide required by him and, therefore, a notice dated 02nd February 1982 was served to the opponent. However, the opponent did not comply with the said notice. Hence, the applicant was constrained to file the said suit, which ultimately came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred Civil Appeal before the lower Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. The lower Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, present Revision Application.

(3.) IN view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the impugned conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Courts below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, present Revision Application deserves to be rejected.