PREMABEN K VAYDA Vs. CHAMPABEN CHIMANLAL VORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant- heir and legal representative of original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court-learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhuj dated 09/05/1996 in Regular Civil Suit No. 21/1986 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhuj- Kutch dated 24/02/2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89/1996 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant-heir and legal representative of the original plaintiff confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the eviction decree on the ground that the tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation.

(2.) THE original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 21/1986 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhuj-Kutch seeking recovery of possession-eviction decree on the ground that the original tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the two sons of the original tenant have acquired the property and they are residing in other premises and, therefore, the original tenant has acquired the alternative suitable accommodation. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing the written statement that the original tenant is residing in the suit premises alongwith his wife, younger son as well as unmarried daughter and, therefore, it cannot be said that the original tenant has acquired the alternative suitable accommodation. The learned trial Court framed the issued. Both the sides led the evidence and, thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the it cannot be said that the original tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit, the heirs of the original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 89/1996 before the learned District Court, Kutch at Bhuj and the learned appellate Court-learned

(3.) IN view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.