YAKUBABDUL REHMAN SURTI Vs. YUSUFBHAI GANIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicants- original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad dated 29/02/1996 in HRP Civil Suit No. 68/1986 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the said suit instituted by the applicants-original plaintiffs for recovery of possession/eviction decree as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad dated 22/06/2001 in Civil Appeal No. 48/1996 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the applicants-original plaintiffs confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE applicants-original plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession/eviction decree on the ground that the respondents-original defendants are in arrears of rent for more than six months; that the suit premises is required by the applicants-original plaintiffs bonafidely for their personal use and occupation as well as on the ground that the respondents- original defendants has put up permanent structure without prior consent/approval of the landlord. It appears that the ground for arrears of rent was not pressed during the trial and, therefore, the applicants-original plaintiffs-landlord asked for eviction decree on the ground of his personal bonafide requirement as well as on the ground that the respondents- original defendants has put up permanent structure without prior approval/consent of the landlord. The suit was resisted by the respondents-original defendants by submitting that as such there was no permanent structure put up by him by which it has caused damage to the property. It was the case on behalf of the respondents-original defendants that as the suit premises was very old made of wooden planks and bamboos and were in dilapidated condition and its roof was broken at several places and it was dangerous to reside in it and as same was likely to cause damage to the property and the persons residing in it, it was necessary to repair the roof at once and, therefore, consequently the roof was repaired and it was submitted that there was no permanent structure put up by him, which has damaged the property. The learned trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 34. Both the Courts below led the evidence, documentary as well as oral and on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held the issues in the negative against the applicants-original plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents-original defendants and consequently the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad dated 29/02/1996 in HRP Suit No. 68/1986 the applicants-original plaintiffs instituted Civil Appeal No. 48/1996 before the learned appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below in dismissing the suit/appeal and not passing the eviction decree the applicants-original plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below as well as considered the evidence on record from the Record and Proceedings, which has been received form the learned trial Court. The applicants-original plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of possession and for eviction decree on the ground of bonafide and personal requirement of the applicants-original plaintiffs as well as on the ground that the respondents-original defendants-tenants has erected the permanent structure without the consent of the landlord. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have negatived the above refusing to pass the eviction decree. There are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding that the applicants- original plaintiffs do not require the suit premises for their bonafide and personal requirement and the applicants-original plaintiffs have failed to prove that the respondents-original defendants-tenants has erected the permanent structure, which has caused damage to the property. The findings of fact given are on appreciation of evidence and unless and until it is pointed out that the same are perverse, the same is not required to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.