MANIBEN MOHANBHAI VANKER Vs. NARAYAN POTTERY WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Applications are filed against the order dated 5/01/2001 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in P.S.R.P. No. 7 to 20 and 23 of 1997. There were in all 15 matters before the trial court, out of which in 4 matters, being PSRP No. 9/97, 10/97, 12/97 and 13/97, the respondents had not resisted the application by filing the reply and out of remaining 11 matters, the present Civil Revision Applications are in respect of 5 original-respondents/present petitioners. Since common issues are involved in all the 5 petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Since the common issues were framed and common evidence was recorded in PSRP No. 7/97, which gives rise to the Civil Revision Application No. 319 of 2001, the facts were taken from the said petition.

(2.) . The facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as under : The respondent, who is the original-applicant, in all the applications before the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, is a partnership firm having 3 partners. The said firm was dealing in the business of ceramic articles at Saijpur Bhoga, Naroda Road, Ahmedabad. The respondent was having several rooms to accommodate its workers to reside in the said rooms. The said workers were doing labouring works of ceramic articles and accordingly they were provided and permitted to reside in the rooms in the property of the respondent. It is further contended in the application before the trial court that the workers were not having any accommodation to reside in the city and hence one room was provided to each of the worker on leave and licence basis and they were to abide by the terms and conditions as incorporated in the leave and licence agreement. Though the workers were provided accommodation on different dates, leave and licence agreement was executed on 1.5.1975. It was also made clear in the said leave and licence agreement that the workers were provided shelter and they were permitted to reside there during the tenure of their service with the present respondent and that the municipal taxes and education cess were to be borne by the present respondent. It is further contended in the application before the trial court by the present respondent that as per condition No.6 of leave and licence agreement, the present petitioners were only entitled to reside and use the premises till they continue to be in service with the respondent. In case of completion of service of the petitioners or in case of their retirement from service or if they leave the service in that case the petitioners were to hand over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent. It was further contended that the petitioners have left service of the respondent and that they were not doing any labouring work or service with the respondent and that therefore they were not entitled to keep or occupy possession of the premises in question for any further period and hence the respondent was entitled to get possession of rooms from the petitioners. It was further contended that since the petitioners were not vacating the suit premises, the respondent was compelled to serve notice dated 9.4.1997 on the petitioners terminating the leave and licence agreement with the petitioners. Despite this notice the premises were not vacated by the petitioners and hence the abovereferred petitions were filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on 19.7.1997.

(3.) . After service of the notice, the present petitioners appeared and filed their written statement in reply resisting the claim made by the present respondent before the Small Causes Court. It was inter alia contended in the said reply by the present petitioners that the petition filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court is not maintainable and that the condition No.6 of leave and licence agreement was not binding on the petitioners and that they have not retired or left or resigned from the services of the respondent. The respodnent had locked out the premises without assigning sufficient or lawful reasons. It was also alleged in the said reply that the respondent had dragged the petitioners to unnecessary litigations and only with a view to harass them and to obtain easy eviction of the respective premises from the petitioners, the petitions were filed by the present respondent in Small Cause Court.