SWARUPRAM BHIKHAJI RAVAL Vs. ANJANABEN MAHESHBHAI TAILOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is the original tenant. He faced the decree of eviction passed by trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The eviction was ordered on the grounds under Section 13(1)(k) and under Section 13((1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act' for sake of brevity).

(2.) AGGRIEVED applicant has filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 16th December 2004 of learned Joint District Judge Fourth Fast Track Court, Navsari, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1997.

(3.) THE profile of relevant facts may be set out. Respondent landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1992 for decree of eviction against the applicant -tenant before the Court of learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Navsari. The suit was based on two grounds, firstly that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation; secondly that the premises was in non -use for continuous period of six months preceding the date of the suit. The rented premises was Municipal House No.226A, New No. 484, City Survey Tikka No. 31/7 situated in the town of Navsari, which was rented on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ - under Rent Note dated 23rd July 1971. It was the case of the plaintiff that the premises was let out for carrying out hotel business; that the defendant tenant started business of hotel in name and style of "Himalayan Restaurant", which subsequently was changed to "Abu Restaurant"; thereafter the restaurant was closed by the tenant. It was the case that the suit premises was not being used for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. Another ground was that the tenant had acquired a suitable alternative accommodation. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant had started a diamond factory at Parota Bazar in Navsari and was not in need of the suit premises and it used to remain closed. The trial Court framed issues at Exh.38. Issue No.2 related to the ground under Section 13(1)(k) which was answered in affirmative by the trial Court. Ultimately, it passed decree for eviction on the said ground.