JAYSINGH KAMATA PRASAD Vs. TARAMATIBEN KANTIPURA GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974 [ 'the Bombay Rent Act, 1947', for short] is filed by the original plaintiff, who projected himself to be tenant of the suit premises, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.85 of 2000, by which the Appellate Court below, while dismissing the Appeal, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2000 passed by the Small Cause Court (Court No.3) Ahmedabad dismissing the HRP Civil Suit No.640 of 1995 instituted by the plaintiff for injunction, restraining the defendant - landlord from taking possession of the suit premises.

(2.) It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is owned by the Khadak Dhareshwar Mahadev Trust and the defendant was the trustee thereof. It was the assertion of the plaintiff that he was tenant of the suit premises. The defendant filed written statement at Exhibit-17 and contended that, the plaintiff was never the tenant of the suit premises. It was further asserted on behalf of the defendant that not only in the suit premises, but the plaintiff is not tenant in any other property of the defendant. While giving evidence, the plaintiff himself discounted his case that he is not tenant but his father and the uncle are the tenants. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Rent Court came to the conclusion that, the plaintiff is not tenant at all. It is held by the Trial Court that the evidence on record disproves the case of the plaintiff. In view of above, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for. The suit came to be dismissed.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2000 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Court below, on appreciation of evidence on record, found that the trial court has not committed any error in recording the judgment in question. It is this judgment and decree of the Appellate Court below, the legality of which is questioned in this Revision Application.