NAYAK KALIDAS MOTIRAM Vs. MENABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the opponents-landlady and her husband-against the order passed by the learned District Judge Mehsana in Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1970 Sled by the opponents-defendants in the District Court Mehsana. That appeal was filed by them against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1969 filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the opponents-defendants.

(2.) The petitioner is A tenant of a house bearing Municipal Census No. 3/1763 situate in Vantas Mahad in the town of Mehsana where the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is in force Opponent No. 1 purchased the said house sometime in 1967 and opponent No. 2 is her husband. They are residing in a rented house with one house intervening between that house and the house in occupation of the petitioner-tenant. It was the petitioners case that with an object to evict the plaintiff (petitioner) from the suit house some days prior to 31st August 1967 opponent No. 2 at the instigation of opponent No. 1 demolished the eastern wall of the suit house. He also demolished a Dagla connected with the eastern wall and made that house open with a view to see that the petitioner could not be in a position to live there and would vacate. After the said demolition the petitioner gave a notice to them on 31st August 1967 for replacing the wall but opponent No. 1 gave evasive reply and did not comply with it. On the second notice sent to her being refused he was compelled to carry out the repairs himself. He incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 785/in making those repairs as detailed in the plaint. That notice charges came to Rs. 22.75 paise and foregoing a part of the claim he filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 800.00.

(3.) Opponents by their written statement. Ex. 12 contended inter alia that the wall which had fallen was in a dilapidated condition for which they had also obtained the permission of the municipality to reconstruct the same. It had fallen on its own on account of rain. They wanted to repair but they were not allowed to do so. Petitioner having repaired the same without their consent he is not entitled to claim anything from them. Quantum of the claim was also challenged.