HEIRS OF MAVJIBHAI TULSIBHAI Vs. GULAM MOHAMMAD MUSABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application emanates from the H.R.P. Civil Suit No.4264 of 1987, which was filed by the landlords against the present applicants - tenants seeking the possession of the suit property, which was decreed in favour of the landlord by the judgment and order dtd. 2/9/1997. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the tenants have filed Civil Appeal No.140 of 1997 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Bench also confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dtd. 28/9/2001, which has given rise to the present revision application.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.G. R. Manav, appearing for the applicants has submitted that both the Courts below have fallen in error, while passing the orders of seeking possession of the suit property. It is submitted that the Trial Court should have appreciated the fact that the tenants were regularly paying the rent and are entitled to the protection under Sec. 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (for short, "the Rent Act "). It is submitted that even the standard rent, which has been fixed by the Trial Court was regularly deposited by the tenant and hence, he would be also entitled to protection under Sec. 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act. Learned advocate has further submitted that in fact, the suit is decreed by resorting to the provisions of Sec. 13(b) of the Rent Act, and handing over of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff was erroneous, since the construction, which was undertaken by the tenants, was after the permission of the landlord. Learned advocate has further submitted that the Trial Court has in fact, recorded the findings in favour of the tenants with regard to the deposit of the rent and hence, the decree, while resorting to the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act were not uncalled for. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) No one appears on behalf of the opponents, even after passage of 20 years, when the matter is taken up for hearing.