USMANKHAN SAIYEDKHAN PATHAN Vs. MAJIDBHAI MUSABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Application has been filed by the applicant-original defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, wherein the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.1996 passed by the Learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No.146 of 1987 and also prayed for declaring that the Suit is governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Control Act.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are that Civil Suit No.38 of 1978 came to be filed before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (JD), Thasra by the plaintiff-respondent herein for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the Suit inter alia arrears of rent and bonafide requirements. THE Suit came to be allowed partly by the Learned Civil Judge, Thasra and ordered that amount of rent for an amount of Rs.900/- deposited by the tenant shall be paid to the landlord, who is entitle to have this amount, however, the claim for the possession on the ground of bonafide requirement was not accepted. Against this order, Regular Civil Suit No.246/1987 before the Court of the Learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad was filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act for the grounds mentioned therein. THE said Appeal was allowed and the Judgment and Decree passed in Civil Suit No.38 of 1978 of the trial court was set aside. It was also directed that the applicant-tenant to give the vacant possession, for which, time was granted. THErefore, the present Revision Application has been filed on the grounds set out in the present Revision Application contending inter alia that the lower appellate court has erred in allowing the application and has also failed to appreciate that there was no outstanding rent. It is also contended that the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the Suit is governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Control Act. It is also contended that though the Suit is governed by Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Control Act, the dispute was raised about the standard rent. In the written statement, it is also contended that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 41, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) HE has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (2) G.L.H. 73 in case of Shardaben M. Patel, HEirs of Maganlal Motiram Patel V/s Ranjitlal Mansukhlal (Deceased) and submitted that as observed, conditions as envisaged under Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act are required to be fulfilled for the eviction decree and if any of the conditions is not satisfied, no eviction decree can be passed. It is in these circumstances, he submitted that the present application may not be entertained.