FAIZUBHAI MAHMADBHAI Vs. BALKRISHNA NARADLAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Junagadh in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1964 whereunder he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Junagadh in Civil Suit No. 32 of 1963. That suit was filed by one Munshi Abdullah Miyan Mahmad Miyan describing himself as the Rent Collector of the house of Datar Estate Committee of Junagadh. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the leased premises and arrears of rent on the ground that the appellant-tenant was a tenant in arrears. A valid notice to quit was given and the contractual tenancy was determined. A notice contemplated under sec. 12(2) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given. That notice was not complied with and hence the suit was filed as contemplated under sec. 12(2) of the Act. That notice was given under the instructions of both the rent controller and the chairman of the Committee.

(2.) The contention raised by the tenant by his written statement Ex. 8 was that a rent collector of the Datar Estate has no right to file a suit. The suit property did not belong to the Datar Estate at all. On the land on which the structure stood which was originally a hut his grand-mother was staying for the last 35 years. He had reconstructed the house. The land was the Government land. It was the municipal land. It was not the property belonging to the Datar Estate and he was not the tenant of the Datar Estate. It was represented to him on behalf of the said Estate that if he executed such a rent note that would help the said Estate in extending the extent of its property and that is how the rent-note came to be executed by him in favour of the Datar Estate. He had not paid the rent due as the title of the Datar Estate was under challenge and the Municipality was claiming its title over the property. He should be given credit for the amount spent by him for the reconstruction and repairs.

(3.) The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff who is found to be a rent-collector of the Datar Estate has a right to file such a suit in view of the provisions of the Act. The defendant failed to prove that he had executed the rent-note on the aforesaid representation. The defendant is stopped from challenging the title of his landlord. The defendant has failed to prove the alleged expenditure. He is not entitled to get any such amount even if he spent it being for reconstruction of the house and not for repairs. The defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. In view of these findings a decree for possession and for arrears of rent and for mesne profits was passed against the defendant. The suit was decreed with costs.