HUSENIBHAI LUKMANJI TINWALA Vs. ABBASBHAI SADEKALI LIGHTWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant -original defendant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad in HRP Civil Suit No. 432/1983 dated 28/02/1994 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad dated 19/03/2001 in Civil Appeal No. 38/1994 by which the learned appellate Bench has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the applicant -original defendant -tenant by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court against the applicant -original defendant -tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act i.e. on the ground that the applicant -original defendant -tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation.

(2.) THE respondent -original plaintiff instituted HRP Civil Suit No. 4213/1983 against the applicant -original defendant -tenant for recovery of possession/eviction decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that the applicant -original defendant -tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues. Considering the pleadings and on appreciation of evidence and even considering the deposition of the wife of the applicant -original defendant -tenant who was examined as witness by the respondent -original plaintiff the learned trial Court held that the applicant -original defendant -tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation and, therefore, the learned trial Court passed the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in HRP Civil Suit No. 4213/1983 the applicant -original defendant -tenant preferred Civil Appeal No. 38/1994 before the learned appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad and the learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 19/03/2001 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court passing the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order/decree passed by both the Courts below, the applicant -original defendant -tenant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act

(3.) SHRI M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant -original defendant -tenant has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in passing the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent act. It is submitted by Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant -original defendant -tenant that the alternative accommodation which was alleged to have been acquired by the applicant -original defendant -tenant was not as an owner and that too by his wife and, therefore, it is submitted that when the applicant -original defendant -tenant acquired the alternative accommodation not as an owner and was not in possession of the alternative property no decree could have been passed under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is submitted that even the alternative accommodation was disposed of by the applicant -original defendant -tenant prior to institution of the suit and, therefore, also no decree could have been passed under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant -original defendant -tenant has also relied upon the affidavit of changed circumstances submitting that as landlord has sold the property for which the suit for possession is filed and, therefore, it is submitted that it is required to take into consideration the same and it is requested to quash and set aside the judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below passing the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. No other submissions have been made.