ILYAS YUSUFBHAI LALLWALA Vs. GULAMMOHAMMAD DINMOHAMMAD SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to challenge judgment and decree dated 7th April, 2014, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.139 of 2013, which in turn confirmed judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court asking the applicant -original defendant tenant to vacate the suit premises.

(2.) THE respondent -landlord instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 440 of 2011 before the Small Cause Court No.3, Ahmedabad, praying for decree of eviction on three grounds. First ground pleaded was of non -user of the premises, falling under Sec. 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Bombay Rent Act' for the sake of brevity). The second ground was under Sec. 13(1)(g) of the Act, that the premises were reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord. The ground of acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation under Sec. 13(1)(l) was the third ground sought to be pressed into service by the landlord.

(3.) IN the plaint, it was the case of the plaintiff that the suit premises -the shop bearing Municipal No.0125 -090 -021 -0003 -N situated in Shahpur Baki Heveli, Ahmedabad, was let out to the defendant since 1984 on monthly tent of Rs.170/ -. Pleading non -user, it was the case that the premises was not being used since last one year and that it was kept in locked condition. On the bonafide personal requirement of the premises, it was the case of the landlord that his two sons were not employed and one of the sons who was doing work of Television repairing and of cable line, was in the need of shop to settle down his business. It was stated that since the tenant had acquired another premises at other place where business was being carried on, the tenant's hardship would be in less degree, compared to landlord's, if the premises was vacated.