NAVALSHANKAR AMRUTLAL Vs. PRABHABEN BECHARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present revision application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the original-defendants-tenants of the suit premises have challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2003 passed in Civil Case No. 255 of 1995 by learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi, by which the suit filed by the opponent-landlady for requiring possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Section 13(a) as well as under Section 13(L) of the Act came to be decreed and by judgment and order dated 8.9.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Morbi, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2003 by which the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been confirmed.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are as under :

(3.) Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has assailed this judgment. He took the Court through the judgment of the Trial Court and the deposition of plaintiff-landlady, etc. and argued that the Courts below had committed error in holding that the premise was not being used by the legal heirs as well as by ignoring the fact that the applicants were not residing with Navalshankar at the time of his death and therefore, ought not to have decreed the suit, which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. It is argued that the compromise arrived at between the parties before this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1573 of 1982 is not properly appreciated by the Trial Court and therefore, the Trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit.