HARISHCHANDRA AMBALAL SHAH Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA JESINGBHAI BHOJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present Revision Application under Section-29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act for short), the original defendants/appellants tenants have challenged the judgment and order dated 2.4.1999, passed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court No.11 at Ahmedabad, in H.R.P. Suit No.1782 of 1990, by which the decree of eviction of the residential premises has been passed as well as the judgment and order dated 21.4.2008, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, in Civil Appeal No.114 of 1999, by which the appeal preferred by the appellants original defendants- tenants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents plaintiffs landlord has been confirmed.

(2.) The facts of the present case are briefly stated as under:

(3.) Mr. Limbachia, learned Advocate, for the petitioners tenants, has mainly argued that the suit was barred by non-joinder of parties. He submitted that the suit premises was rented to the father of the petitioner No.1 and after the death of his father in the year 1977, he was residing in the suit premises with his mother, two brothers and one sister and, therefore, all legal heirs of the deceased-tenant, the plaintiffs landlords ought to have joined them as parties in the suit being necessary parties. It is submitted that they are the legal heirs of the deceased tenants and as per the provisions of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Rent Act, they are to be treated as tenants and, therefore, the learned Trial Court, ought to have dismissed the suit on the sole ground. Mr. Limbachia, learned Advocate for the petitioners has also tried to assail the judgments of the courts below on the finding of fact with regard to non-using of the suit premises as well as acquiring an alternate suitable premises by the petitioners/defendants tenants.