LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-37

MANGUBEN Vs. AMBALAL MOHNALAL SUKHADIA

Decided On June 16, 2011
MANGUBEN WD/O.SUNDERLAL RAMI Appellant
V/S
AMBALAL MOHNALAL SUKHADIA, HUF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.110/1988 dated 07.02.1997 whereby, the said appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court No.6, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No.1038/1982 dated 28.09.1988 has been quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent herein, original plaintiff, preferred a suit being H.R.P. Suit No.1038/1982 against the petitioner, original defendant, before the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of one room on the top floor of the property bearing M.C. No.1174/5/1 situated in Manekchowk, Bandhara's Khancha, Ahmedabad and also for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits, cost of the suit, etc.. THE suit property was occupied by the original defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.12/-. However, by way of judgment and decree dated 28.09.1988, the prayer for recovery of possession of the suit premises was rejected and the prayer to recovery the amount as claimed in the plaint was allowed.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. In his deposition at Exhibit-55, the original defendant categorically admitted that he had constructed a new residential house in Sabarmati area of Ahmedabad City out of his own funds. He has also admitted that on account of shortage of space in the suit premises, he was compelled to purchase the new residential house. It is a matter of record that the original defendant had purchased the said new property in the year 1981. Apart from that it was also not the case of the original defendant that he was doing any business after he retired from service on 15.04.1988. A defence was sought to be raised by original defendant that his wife was doing business of selling flowers. However, the said version was not believed by the appellate Court as it was found to be untrustworthy.