RAMESHCHANDRA JAMNADAS MESWANIYA Vs. JERAMDAS JAMNADAS MESWANIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicants-original defendants-heirs and legal representatives of original tenant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh dated 28/02/2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 126/1997 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents-original plaintiffs by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and consequently passing the eviction decree against the applicants under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground that the applicants have acquired alternative accommodation.

(2.) The original landlord-Shri Jayantilal Kanjibhai Vaghela-respondents-original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 743/1987 against the original tenant Shri Jamnadas Vasandas Mesvaniya in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground that the tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that during pendency of the suit the tenant sold the alternative accommodation and, therefore, at the time of passing of the decree the tenant-applicants was not in possession of the alternative accommodation. It is to be noted that during pendency of the suit, the original tenant died and, therefore, his heirs were brought on record. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the tenant was not in arrears of rent for more than six months. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Junagadh dated 24/07/1997 in Regular Civil Suit No. 743/1987 in dismissing the suit the heirs of the respondents-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 126/1997 and by impugned judgment and order the learned appellate Court has allowed the said appeal quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit and consequently decreeing the suit under Section 13(1)(l) of the Act on the ground that the tenant/applicants has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court, the heirs of the original tenant have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) Shri Param Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that the learned appellate Court has materially erred in allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. It is submitted by Shri Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that when during pendency of the suit, the accommodation, which was alleged to have been acquired by the tenant, was sold and was in possession of the tenant at the time of passing of the decree, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit on the ground that at the time of passing of the decree the tenant is not in occupation and/or possession of the alternative accommodation and, therefore, the learned appellate Court is not justified in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the suit was taken up for final hearing i.e at the time of judgment and decree the tenant was not in occupation and possession of the alternative accommodation and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.