PUNJIBEN Vs. MOHANLAL MANSUKHBHAI GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to the claim of respondent-landlord (original plaintiff) to evict the appellants from business premises situated in Baroda. The premises consist of a shop; and admittedly one Chhotalal father of appellant No. I was at one point of time the tenant thereof. As per the finding of the lower appellate Court the tenancy of this Chhotalal was terminated by the landlord during Chhotalals life time before instituting a suit against him. That was Civil Suit No. 1235 of 1956. That suit was compromised. However the learned appellate Judge has found that Chhotalal was a statutory tenant on the day he died in March 1960 This Chhotalal left behind him his widow Bai Hari and the only child Punjiben-appellant No. 1. As per the finding given by the Courts below the widow and this daughter were staying with Chhotalal in Chhotalals own house till his death. Chhotalals widow carried on business in the rented premises till her death in February 1964 and she left behind her appellant No. 1. As per the findings of the Courts below both the appellants have been staying with Chhotalal during his life time and were staying with Haribai the widow of Chhotalal till her death in another premises belonging to Chhotalal. After the death of Chhotalals widow the plaintiff gave notice to the defendants on August 18 1964 to quit. The defendants replied to the same on September 1 1964 and thereafter the suit from which present Second Appeal arises was filed on October 20 1964 by the plaintiff-respondent alleging that Chhotalal and his widow as well as the defendants were staying in a different house belonging to Chhotalal and that Chhotalal was before his death doing the business of food grains in the suit premises. The further allegation was that after his death Haribai was doing the business of food grains in these premises and as the suit premises were let out only for the purpose of business the defendants had no right to continue in possession thereof after the death of Chhotalal and Haribai because they had no interest in the business carried on by Chhotalal and Haribai; and they were also not co-parceners in the family of Chhotalal and Haribai. According to the defendants the suit premises were let out not for business purpose only but also for residence and that in addition to doing business Chhotalal Haribai and the defendants were using the suit premises for residence. They also stated that they were interested in the business carried on by Chhotalal in the suit premises from the beginning and were also members of the family of Chhotalal. They contended that they were staying with Chhotalal and Haribai during their life time and after their death they continued in the suit premises having continued the same business. It is on these grounds that they claimed protection of their possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The trial Court found that both the defendants were staying with Chhotalal; and after his death with his widow Bai Hari till the death of Haribai and that they were helping Haribai in her business. In fact the learned trial Judge stated that both of them were carrying on business with Haribai. The further finding given by the learned trial Judge was that both the defendants Chhotalal and Haribai were staying in their own house in Ranavas; and that defendant No. 2 had come to stay with defendant No. 1 after their marriage. It may be stated that appellant No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) is the husband of appellant No. 1 ( original defendant No. 1). The learned trial Judge also came to the conclusion that neither Chhotalal nor Haribai nor the defendants were staying in the rented premises i.e. the suit premises. According to the learned trial Judge both the defendants had become lawful tenants of the suit premises in view of the aforesaid findings; and therefore they are not liable to be evicted. Therefore he dismissed the suit with costs. Against that decree the plaintiff appealed to the District Court Baroda. The learned Assistant Judge who heard that appeal differed from the trial Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for eviction. Hence this Second appeal by the original defendants.

(3.) The findings of the appellate Court so far as material for our purposes are as under: