VORA ALIBHAI PRIBHAI Vs. SHAH HARILAL CHHOTALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the above mentioned Civil Revision Applications under section 29(2) of the The Bombay Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, arise out of common judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1983 decided on 22nd August 1986 by learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar, they were heard together and are being simultaneously considered and decided hereby.

(2.) It may be noted at the outset that the record and proceedings of the case in so far as the evidence led was not available. A letter dated 11th January 2013 bearing No. JUDI/357/2013 from learned Addl. District Judge, Surendranagar addressed to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, was on record, which stated as under:-

(3.) The relevant facts may be mustered first. Civil Suit No. 88 of 1979 came to be instituted by plaintiff Alibhai Pirabhai seeking a decree of eviction against the defendants. The grounds pleaded were arrears of rent, subletting and non-user of the premises. It was the case of the plaintiff that the shop was rented to the defendant No.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.9.50 ps. and the tenant was also liable to pay the house tax, education cess, etc. In the suit notice dated 21st August 1978 (Exh. 50), plaintiffs demanded Rs.688.65ps. being the arrears of rent plus Rs.116/- towards education cess. It was plaintiffs' case that defendant No.1 was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months from Kartik Sood 1 of Samvat Year 2029 to Shravan Sood 15 of Samvat Year 2034 and for further three months. The education cess was demanded in respect of period from 25th March 1968 to 13th April 1973. It was alleged in the plaint that though the defendant was in arrears as aforesaid, in order to create evidence of payment of rent, he sent a Demand Draft for Rs.351.50 ps. However, the same was returned to the defendant along with the suit notice. On the above facts, it was contended by the plaintiff that the case fell under section 12(3)(a) as the defendant did not pay the rent amount even after the suit notice, and had incurred the liability of eviction. The second ground urged was that the defendant No.1 had sublet the suit premises to defendant No.2. It was also contended that there was a change of user and defendant No.2 was running the business of foodgrains, sugar, vegetable oils, etc. in the name and style of H.Y. Narshi.