CHAMPABEN JETHALAL Vs. RAJENDRA NANALAL JABANPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present Revision Application, the original plaintiffs - landlords have challenged the judgment and order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Junagadh, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68 of 2002, whereby allowed the Appeal filed by the original defendant­tenant and set aside the judgment and eviction decree dated 27.9.2002, passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge (JD), Junagadh, in Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 1992 filed by the plaintiffs­landlords.

(2.) BRIEF facts arising from the present case are as under: That the present petitioners­landlords filed a Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 1992 in the court of Third Joint Civil Judge (JD), Junagadh,under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act" for short), for possession of the suit property, namely, the shop, situated at Danapith Area, Opp: Taluka School No.3, which was let to the father of the opponent by the predecessor of the petitioners. That there were several grounds raised by the original plaintiffs ­ landlords for possession of the suit premises. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlords. The said judgment and eviction decree was challenged by the present opponent­original defendant ­ tenant by way of filing an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2002 under Section 29 of the Act, in the District Court at Junagadh. The learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 7, Junagadh, by judgment and order dated 29.7.2006 allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment and eviction decree passed by the Trial Court by which the defendant­tenant was directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises and, hence, the present Revision Application is filed by the original plaintiffs­ landlords.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. R.C.Kakkad, appearing for the opponent­tenant has submitted that the lower appellate court has considered the case of both the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that there was no bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiffs ­ landlords.