TAYAB ABUBAKAR LATIF Vs. JADHAVJI MITHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application is filed by the original plaintiff-landlord against the judgment and decree dated 17-4-1975 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.). Veraval dismissing Reg. Civil Suit No. 142 of 1970 and confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh, by dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1975 by order dated 31-3-1978.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the said suit against the respondentdefendant firm carrying business mainly of timber at Veraval inter alia making the averments that the property consisting of open compound admeasuring 10,500 sq.fts. with built up area of about 350 sq.fts. of two small office rooms and corridor was let out to the defendant for the purpose of storing mainly timber at monthly rent of Rs. 75.00; that the plaintiff was landlord within the meaning of the Bombay Rent Act; that he proposes to demolish the existing structure of two office rooms and corridor on the open land let out to the defendant and on the entire open land he wanted to build residential premises; that for the purpose of said proposed construction he got prepared plans and estimates by the qualified architect which have been sanctioned by the Veraval Municipality; that he had available with him necessary funds for the purpose of erection of the proposed construction and that he has also obtained necessary certificate from the Tribunal as required under Sec. 13(3A) of the Bombay Rent Act. There was also an averment in the plaint with regard to termination of the tenancy by giving notice to the defendant and calling upon it to hand over vacant possession of the premises. As the defendant did not comply with the requirements of the notice the aforesaid suit came to be filed for recovery of the possession of the suit premises.

(3.) The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement (Ex. 24). The defendant denied all the claims made by the plaintiff. It was specifically pointed out by the defendant that the plaintiff's need was neither bona fide nor reasonable and that it was not motivated by the humanitarian considerations of easing housing problems in town. According to the defendant, as the defendant rejected the exhorbitant price of the suit property offered by the plaintiff he was irritated and manouvered the ground for filing the present suit to pressurise the defendant in submitting to his unjust demand which was neither genuine nor bona fide. The defendant also denied the correctness and legality of the plans and estimates of the proposed new buildings and sanction given by the Municipality for the same and availability of necessary funds with the plaintiff for erection of the said construction. The defendant has also challenged the admissibility and evidentiary value of the Certificate of the Tribunal on the ground that defendant was not a party to the proceedings and that no opportunity was given to it to put their case before them. The defendant specifically contended that the suit premises alleged was not only used for storing timber but the same was taken on lease for business both for storing as well as for selling timber, assorted planks and wood, etc.. and the defendant was tenant in the suit premises for several years with established business and goodwill and that they would suffer greatest hardship and would be thrown out in the street.