HARUBHA DEVUBHA GOHIL Vs. KRISHNABA BALVANTSINH JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Lodging and Boarding Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act ") emanates from the order dtd. 29/9/2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 1997 confirming the order dtd. 4/8/1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (JD), Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No.472 of 1992. FACTS

(2.) The plaintiff-Krishnaba Balvantsinh Jadeja instituted Regular Civil Suit No.472 of 1992 under the provisions of the Rent Act claiming eviction of the defendant-applicant from the suit premises being House No.169 paiki situated in Shastrinagar, Housing Board Colony, Machchharnagar, Jamnagar on the ground of non- payment of rent, alteration in rented property etc. The defendant-applicant filed his written statement below Exh.15 and resisted the suit of the plaintiff-respondent contending that from 1/1/1989, he was a tenant of the plaintiff- respondent however, since the property itself was purchased by his father, there was no question of payment of outstanding rent etc. Further, it was contended that his father had purchased the disputed property from the plaintiff-respondent on 6/4/1990 as per the registered agreement to sell, which was registered at Sr. No.7423. It was further submitted that the possession of the disputed property was given and a sum of Rs.5,000.00 was paid on the date of agreement to sell, Rs.15,000.00 was paid on 6/4/1990 and Rs.10,000.00was paid on 20/3/1991.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar appearing for the original defendant-applicant has submitted that the original plaintiff-respondent in order to grab the suit property, had instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction. He has referred to the agreement to sell dtd. 3/4/1990 Exh.69, which was registered on 6/4/1990 and has submitted that it was agreed upon to pay the total amount of Rs.30,000.00. It is submitted that the defendant had paid the amount initially of Rs.15,000.00, which was admitted by the plaintiff- respondent on 19/7/1992.