JAIKISHANDAS ASHARAM FIRM Vs. ISHWARDAS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the HRP Suit No.758 of 2001 instituted by the original plaintiff -respondent herein, the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad passed decree for eviction on the ground under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The said judgment and decree dated 17.02.2004 was carried in appeal being Civil Appeal No.53 of 2004 by the applicant -tenant before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench by its judgment and decree dated 10.05.2013 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. The applicant -tenant is now before this Court by filing this Revision invoking Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter mentioned as "the Bombay Rent Act" for the sake of brevity).

(2.) ONLY the relevant facts, shorn off unnecessary details, may be stated. The only ground on which the decree was passed by the Small Causes Court answering issue No.4B in affirmative, was under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. Stated in that context only, the facts involved were that the suit premises happened to be a private shop No.248 situated in New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad which was in Saher Kotda Sim, T.P. Scheme No.18, F.P. No.16 paiki. The same was used as godown by the tenant who was running his business in the name and style of M/s.Jaikishandas Asharam. It was a cloth business and the firm was a partnership firm. In the rented premises -the godown, the tenant used to store the cloths.

(3.) IN the HRP suit it was the case of the plaintiff that he became owner of the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.03.1994. It was the case that out of the said property, a room situated on the rear portion, on the ground floor, was let -out to the defendant -tenant. The monthly rent fixed was Rs.181.50. It was also the condition of the tenancy that the Municipal Tax, Education Cess and other taxes/charges payable were to be borne by the tenant. It was the further case that in that the rear portion room -the premises, there were bathroom and latrine, however the defendant -tenant had not been permitting the plaintiff to use the same and therefore, the landlord had to instituted HRP Suit No.1526 of 1994. Non -user of the premises for more than six months was the ground initially pleaded in the plaint. By virtue of amendment sought for, a ground relating to nuisance was incorporated.