MOHINI BHIRYOMAL HINGORANI Vs. BHANUBHAI MANILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act against the concurrent decree of both the Courts below directing the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground of Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. The dispute pertains to a suit house of Baroda on Kothi Road belonging to the respondent and given on rent in the name of the petitioner ever since the time when she was a minor. It is the case that her father was serving at Broach and therefore she was initially studying in Gujarati. But because she wanted to study Sindhi at Broda, she came to her maternal relative and thereafter this house was taken on rent in her name so that she can study there. It is the case that since 1968, the petitioner has gone over to Bombay. She is serving there as a Lecturer in College of Pharmacy and therefore this house is not used. Initially, it was the case that because she has got an alternative accommodation at Bombay, the possession of this premises should be handed over to the respondent under the provisions of the Section 13(1)(1) of the Act. And then another contention, in the alternative which was urged was under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. The case under Section 13(1)(1) as well as 13(1)(k) of the Act was believed by the trial Court and decree was passed on both counts. But the appellate Court considered that two houses at Bombay were not in the name of the petitioner, but they were in the names of her father and mother or brother and therefore decree on that count was set aside. But the learned appellate Judge in appeal, confirmed the decree on the count of Section 13(1)(k) of the Act. The landlord did not proceed father against his being non-suited under Section 13(1)(1) and hence that finding has been found.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner was that she had temporarily gone to Bombay for studies and has taken a casual appointment as Lecturer. But she had all desire to come back to Baroda and stay in the suit house and that in her absence, her parents were staying in the suit house at Baroda and therefore the decree should not be passed. Both the Courts below did not believed the case of the petitioner that her parents were staying in the house and maintaining it which is for the benefit of the petitioner so that after coming back to the Baroda, she could stay there. The Courts below did not believe that she was to return and stay at Baroda. It should be noted that the house is on the main road of city of baroda of Kothi Road on a rent of only Rs. 16.60 p.s.

(3.) NOW I shall refer to the provisions of Section 13(1)(k) of the Act :