RAJESH CHANDULAL GANDHI Vs. ASHOK NATVARLAL DUDHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present two Revision Applications, filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( the Rent Act for short) by the original defendants/appellants-tenants, challenging two separate judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court with regard to one property, are tagged together by order dated 17.9.2009 and, therefore, the same are heard and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts emerges from the case are as under:

(3.) MR . S.M. Shah, learned Advocate, for Mr.J.V. Mehta, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court has failed in framing appropriate issues and particularly Issue No.1, which deals with non-using of the suit property. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has not framed issues in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act and had not mentioned the words without reasonable cause and has not properly considered the same in its true perspective. He further submitted that it has prejudiced the case of the defendants tenants since he was able to show that there was reasonable cause for not using the premises for more than six months preceding the date of filing of the suits since he was in jail and was not able to use the suit premises. He further submitted that when suits were filed by the landlord, he was aware that the defendant tenant was in jail since last more than five years and, therefore, was not able to carry on the business in the suit premises. He further submitted that the reason being the defendant tenant in jail is a reasonable cause for non-using the suit premises. In alternative, he submitted that, even if it is established by the plaintiff-landlord that the suit premises was not used for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suits, there were sufficient reasons, which can be treated as reasonable cause for not using the suit premises and, therefore, the decree of eviction passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act and confirmed by the Appellate Bench, are required to be quashed and set aside.