MUKUNDLAL NANALAL CHANAWALA Vs. BHAGVATSING DHANSING GADARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed by the petitioner- tenant against the decree for possession passed by the trial Court in favour of the opponent-landlord and confirmed by the appellate Court.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy in question few relevant facts may now be stated. The opponent is the original plaintiff who is the landlord and the petitioner is the original defendant who is the tenant of the suit premises. The suit premises consists of one room admeasuring 10 x 7 on the ground floor and another room having the same measu- rement on the first floor situated in Bharuch. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 481 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Bharuch against the defendant to recover possession of the suit premises inter alia on the ground that the defendant had acquired suitable residence; the suit premises had not been used by him for a period of more than six months from the date prior to the filing of the suit; there was change of user by the defendant; the defendant had committed acts contrary to the provisions of clause (i) of Sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the plaintiff required the suit premises for reasonable and bona fide use and occupation and was entitled to a decree for possession under the provisions of Sec. 13(i)(g) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement at Exhibit 12. It was contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable; the notice was not legal and valid it was not true that the suit premises were let for residential purpose the defendant was using the suit premises for business purposes there was neither change of user nor non-user of the premises by the defendant he had not committed any act of waste as contended by the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not require the premises for bona fide and reasonable use and occupation. It was also contended by the defendant that greater hardship will be caused to him if the decree for eviction will be passed than to the plaintiff if the decree for possession will be refused. For all these reasons the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.