PINJARE KARIMBHAI DEDUBHAI Vs. SHUKLA HARIPRASAD MANISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for revision arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovering possession of a shop together with arrears of rent in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Sidhpur. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged before me in this Revision Application it is necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to this litigation. The facts are few and for the most part undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows:-

(2.) The defendant being aggrieved by the decree passed against him by the trial Court preferred an appeal against the same in the Court of the District Judge Mehsana. Now what happened at the hearing of the appeal before the learned District Judge is rather important. The learner advocates appearing on behalf of the defendant stated at the commencement of the hearing of the appeal that to abandoned all his contentions save and except the contention that the defendant had paid the standard rent of the shop on or before the first date of hearing of the suit and that to decree for possession could therefore be passed against the defendant. The learned advocate on behalf of the defendant accordingly urged only one contention before the learned District Judge namely that the defendant had paid the standard Rent of the shop on or before the first date of hearing of the suit and was therefore not liable to be excited from the shop. This contention was obviously based on the provisions of section 12 of the Rent Act. This contention was negatived by the learned district Judge and since this was the only contention urged before the learned District Judge the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with costs. The defendant thereupon approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application.

(3.) Mr. B.R. Shah learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant urged various contentions before me in support of the Revision Application. These contentions have given rise to very interesting questions relating to the interpretation of sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 12 of the Rent Act and I must state that but for the able assistant rendered by the advocates appearing before me - my task would have been rendered considerably more difficult. I shall now proceed to examine these contentions urged Mr. B.R. Shah in the order in which they were pressed before me.