SHAH KAMINIBEN MAHENDRABHAI Vs. JYOTSHANABEN P PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original Defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for the prayer that the judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Appellate Court) dated 19th April, 2010 confirming the judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 622 of 1988 by the Additional Civil Judge, Amedabad (Rural), Mirzapur (lower Court) dated 24th December, 2008 may be quashed and set said on the ground stated in the memo of Revision Application.

(2.) It is contended inter alia that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record like election card as well as other documentary evidence, which suggest the possession and occupation of the suit premises and has erroneously given finding, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that it would make it clear that the applicant is residing since long, which is not possible without permission of the Respondent, however, the said aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below. It is further contended that the Respondent has failed to appreciate that both the judgments of both the Courts below are therefore erroneous and against the principles of law as both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and facts. It is also contended that the Respondent had demanded enhancement of a rent, which has resulted into this litigation. It is also contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the applicant is a widow and her daughter is handicapped and, therefore, the present application may be allowed.

(3.) Learned Counsel, Ms. Trusha Mehta for the applicant has referred to the papers and submitted that the applicant is in occupation and possession of the premises since 1986 and there are documentary evidence to show that she is in occupation and possession of the premises as a tenant. She submitted that merely because there is no rent note, other documents could not have been brushed aside. She submitted that the applicant is widow and is not well aware with the law and, therefore, though the rent is charged and she has been allowed to stay without any rent note, the facts remain that the rent is being paid for which receipts are also issued. Therefore, she pointedly referred to the receipts and submitted that both the Courts below have misdirected and failed to appreciate those aspects as well as other documentary evidence and have only focused that since there is no rent note, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and, hence, the applicant is a trespasser, which is erroneous.