AMRATBEHN MAFATLAL Vs. BAI SHANTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original landlord has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the 'Act' for brief) for challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the learned District judge of Baroda on 8th November 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 340 of 1977. Thereby the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to dismiss the present petitioner's appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Additional Judge of the Small Cause Suit No. 346 of 1975. Thereby the learned Trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the present petitioner's suit for possession of the rented premises from her tenants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revisional application may be summarised thus : The petitioner is the owner of the premises involved in the litigation giving rise to this revisional application. The premises were let out to the predecessor-in-title of the present respondents. It appears that he fell in arrears of rent before he breathed his last. The present petitioner caused to serve one demand notice to the present respondents calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent from 1st January 1964. It appears that the present respondents caused their reply thereto and raised the dispute about the standard rent of the rented premises and also contended that the rent upto May 1970 was duly paid. The present petitioner thereupon filed one suit in the court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Baroda against the present respondents for their vacation from the rented premises inter alia on the ground of arrears of rent for more than six months and for her reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal occupation. That suit came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 1210 of 1979. The present respondents filed their written statement at Exh. 10 in the suit proceedings and resisted it on various grounds. It appeal's that the Small Causes Court came to be established in Baroda some time in 1975. Thereupon the suit came to be transferred to it. It came to be re-registered as Small Cause Suit No. 346 of 1975. The issues were already raised at Exh. 11 in the suit proceedings. The suit appears to have been assigned to the learned Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court at Baroda for trial and disposal. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 14th November 1977 in Small Cause Suit No. 346 of 1975, the learned Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court at Baroda was pleased to dismiss the suit for possession of the rented premises. The aggrieved landlord carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge of Baroda. Her appeal came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 340 of 1977. After hearing the parties, by his judgment and order passed on 8th November 1979, in Civil Appeal No. 340 of 1977, the learned District Judge of Baroda was pleased to dismiss the appeal. The aggrieved landlord has thereupon invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 (2) of the Act for questioning the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge in Appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) The learned District Judge has found in favour of the present petitioner on the question of her bona fide and reasonable occupation. The learned Appellate Judge has however come to the conclusion that the greater hardship will be faced by the tenant if the decree for possession is passed than by the landlord if the decree for possession is refused. Shri Parikh for the petitioner has challenged this finding recorded by the learned Appellate Judge in this revisional application. Shri Parikh for the petitioner wants me to brand this finding recorded by the learned Appellate Judge to be perverse.