JAGMOHANDAS VITHALDAS KANSARA Vs. MOHANLAL MANEKLAL TAILOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application arising under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, has been directed against the appellate judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1978 dated 16/04/1979 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and the decree pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandevi, in Reg. Civil Suit No. 252 of 1974 dated 30/09/1978, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a decree of eviction.

(2.) The plaintiff-landlord Mohanlal Tailor had approached the trial Court for a decree of eviction against the defendant Jagmohandas Kansara on the ground that the defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and that, he was not ready and willing to pay the dues and that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff landlord for his use and occupation. It was also the case of the plaintiff landlord that after coming into operation of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, the defendant tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence. The above said case of the plaintiff landlord came to be challenged by the defendant tenant by W. S. at Exh. 8 in which it is inter alia contended by the defendant tenant that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent which was due. The defendant tenant has also complained that the suit premises were not reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff landlord for his own use and occupation. It was a further contention raised by the defendant tenant in the W. S, that the house property in Anand Baug Co-operative Society was not sufficient to accommodate the defendant and the members of the family and that the above said house was in a bad and worn out condition and was not fit for habitation of the defendant and the members of his family. Upon the above said pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge has reached the conclusion that the defendant was not in arrears of rent as urged by the plaintiff and that, it cannot be said that he was not ready and willing to pay the rent. The learned trial Judge had also reached a conclusion that the evidence adduced before him showed and established that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the plaintiff landlord for his own use and occupation. Lastly the learned trial Judge had also taken the view that the defendant tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence because he has a bungalow at Anand Baug Co-op. Society in the same city. Reaching the above said conclusion the learned trial Judge has awarded the decree of eviction as prayed for by the plaintiff landlord. The above said judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge dated 30th Sept. 1978 and the consequent decree came to be challenged by the defendant tenant before the District Court, Valsad at Navsari by filing Reg. Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1978. The learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the decree as pronounced by the learned trial Judge, was required to be confirmed because the evidence on record established both the grounds on which the decree was prayed for. In view of this matter the learned appellate Judge has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decree pronounced by the trial Court. The above said judgment of the appellate Court dated 16-4-1979 and the consequent appellate decree are being assailed in present Civil Revision Application which has been filed by the petitioners, who are the original defendants.

(3.) The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff landlord against the defendant tenant Jagmohandas Kansara but it appears that after the pronouncement of the appellate judgment and the decree, the said tenant has expired and therefore, his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record who figure as the petitioners in this Civil Revision Application before this Court.