MOHANLAL JETHABHAI SOLANKI Vs. SAMUAL DAUDBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act hereinafter refer red to as the Rent Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-8-1981 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1979 dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-original defendants against the judgment and order dated 31-3-1979 rendered by the Additional Judge Small Causes Court at Surat in Small Cause Suit No. 1578 of 1975 whereby the learned Trial Judge directed the defendants (present petitioners) to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1560.00 and mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 60.00 p.m. from the date of the suit till recovery of the possession fixing the standard rent of the suit premises at Rs. 60.00 p.m.

(2.) . The facts of the case may briefly be reproduced from the judgment of the learned Extra Assistant Judge.

(3.) . The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit alleging that the defendant No. 1 hired the suit premises from the plaintiff that he was the statutory tenant in the suit premises that the rent fell in ar rears from 1-7-1971 that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation that the defendant No. 1 acquired suitable residence and that the conduct of the defendants amounted to nuisance and annoyance to the neighbouring occupiers. The plaintiff therefore claimed possession of the suit premises coupled with the ar rears of rent and mesne profits in the suit. The defendants resisted the suit While denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in the suit they asserted that the plaintiff was in possession of sufficient space that the defendant No. 1 1 had taken on lease the suit premises for defendants No 2 and 3 that there was no question of defendant No. 1 acquiring suitable residence and as he had been residing in his own building form the time of his birth and that although the suit premises was hired In his name in fact it was hired for real tenants being defendants Nos. 2 and 3 The defendants contended that if decree for eviction is passed they would suffer greater hardship. They also disputed the legality and validity of the suit notice while asserting that the defendant No. 1 did not refuse to accept the notice. They finally contended that the standard rent the suit premises would be As 25/- per month. Both the Courts below held hat the defendant No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises that the standard rent of the suit premises would be Rs. 60.00 p.m. that the defendant No. I was tenant in arrears for personal requirement and that the plaintiff would be entitled to possession on the ground of arrears of rent. It is against the aforesaid judgment and decree for eviction passed by the learned Trial Judge and confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge in appeal that has made the petitioners original defendants to move this Court as aforesaid.