DAHYABHAI MOTIRAM DECD Vs. NATHUBHAI BHIMBHAI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-landlord filed against the defendanttenant the present suit for recovering possession of the suit premises on three grounds. Firstly he alleged that the defendant had been in arrears of rent from December 1 1967 to November 30 1968 Secondly he alleged that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own occupation. Thirdly he alleged that the defendant had built a suitable residence for himself. The rent of the suit premises is Rs. 63.50 per month. The suit premises are situate in the town of Billimora. The defendant denied the plaintiffs claim and contended that the statutory notice served upon him by the plaintiff was invalid. Before the learned trial Judge the plaintiff gave up his contention as to arrears of rent and proceeded with the trial of the suit on two other grounds of eviction. The learned trial Judge negatived the defendants contention that the statutory notice served upon him was invalid. He also negatived the two grounds of eviction which the plaintiff pressed before him for recovery of possession of the suit premises. In that view of the matter he dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

(2.) The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. Before the learned District Judge the plaintiff gave up his contention that he reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for his personal occupation and pressed only one ground of eviction in his attempt to obtain decree for possession against the defendant. He contended that the defendant had built a suitable residence within the meaning of sec. 13(1)(L) of the Bombay Rent Act and was therefore liable to be evicted. The defendant did not raise the contention before the learned District Judge that the statutory notice served upon him was invalid. The learned District Judge nagatived the only ground of eviction pressed by the plaintiff for his decision and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal.

(3.) It is that appellate decree which is called in question by the plaintiff in this revision application. Mr. Nanavati who appears for the plaintiff has raised before me only one contention. He has argued that the learned District Judge was in error in negativing the plaintiffs contention that the defendant was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had built a suitable residence. In order to examine this contention it is necessary to take note of a few undisputed facts. Tile defendant has admitted in his evidence that the constructed a bungalow in 1969 which consists of ground floor and the first floor. On the ground floor there are 5 rooms. On the first floor there are 4 rooms. in all the defendant has got nine rooms in his newly constructed bungalow. It appears that he has let out the first floor to a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 150.00.