RADHABAI WD/O HARI VITTHU Vs. GANUBHAI KRISHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff filed suit in Ahmedabad City Civil Court for a declaration, perpetual injunction and recovering possession of a portion of the premises in question from the respondent defendant on the ground that he had illegally occupied the same. Trial Court did not grant relief for declaration and injunction as it found that only decree for possession Would serve the purpose. Trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit only as regards possession.

(2.) What is urged by Mr. Dave, the learned advocate for the appellants in this appeal is that in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable. It was urged that in fact action should have been taken under Section 5 of the Act; and the suit filed by the plaintiff was clearly barred by Section 16 of the said Act. The dispute in the present case was between an allottee who has now become the owner of the suit premises and a trespasser. The allottee had also become a purchaser of the property in view of the fact that as far back as in 1974, the property was sold by the Board to him. In view of these facts, the Act can have no application at all and the suit filed by the plaintiff in the city Civil Court was perfectly maintainable.