SHAH KANTILAL MANILAL Vs. KOTHARI GOPALDAS BAPUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad decreed Civil Suit No. 343 of 1957 by the landlord for possession of the premises leased to the tenant on the ground that the tenant had built a house for himself after coming into operation of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act and also on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises. The suit had been filed both against the tenant as well as against the alleged sub-tenant. In appeal the appellate Court confirmed the decree for possession on the first ground but as regards the second ground relating to the alleged sub-tenancy it gave no finding as it felt that it was not necessary in view of the fact that the appellate Court was confirming the decree of the first Court on the first ground.

(2.) In revision the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant contended that the appellate Court should have given a finding regarding the sub tenancy. It is also contended that after the date of the filing of the revision application on 27-2-59 an Ordinance was passed on 21-5-59 according to which all sub-tenancies which came into being before the date of the Ordinance were not to be used as a ground for obtaining possession. It is therefore contended that in view of this Ordinance which was passed after the revision application had been filed it should be held that there was a sub-tenancy notwithstanding the fact that the alleged sub-tenancy was denied till the date of the Ordinance. It is contended that as the Ordinance was passed before the date on which this revision application is being decided the Ordinance should be applied by the revising Court and for this proposition reliance is placed on Parwatibai Vasudeo v. Shridhar 60 Bombay Law Reporter 1175 at p. 1181.

(3.) As regards the first contention that the appellate Court should have given a finding regarding the sub-tenancy the High Court will not interfere in revision merely because a finding which the appellate Court rightly thought was unnecessary was not given. Under section 13(1)(1) of the Act a landlord would be entitled to possession if after coming into operation of the Act the tenant had built a suitable residence. On this point both the Courts have agreed that the landlord is entitled to possession. It was therefore not necessary for the appellate Court to consider whether the landlord was entitled to possession on another ground also. The omission to give a finding on the alleged sub-tenancy is therefore not a matter to be interfered with in revision.