GIRDHARLAL BHOTHABHAI Vs. DAMUMAL BHOJUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present petitioners are the heirs of one Girdharlal Bhothabhai who has filed this Revision application against the judgment and decree of the Joint District Judge Rajkot dated 26-9-1980 in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1979 whereby the learned Joint District Judge has reversed the decision dated 18-6-1979 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vankaner in Regular Civil Suit No. 242 of 1977. This Girdharlal owned a certain property situated at Mochi Bazar in Rajkot and a shop therein had been let out to the respondent. The Civil Revision Application arises out of the aforesaid proceedings filed by the said Girdharlal under the provisions of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act for the sake of brevity). Girdharlal the original plaintiff-petitioner died during the course of this revision application No. 13-2-1991 and the same is prosecuted by his heirs who have come on record.

(2.) . The facts leading to this proceeding are as follows : The original petitioner-landlord let out the shop premises in dispute to the respondent `Damumal Bhojumal on a monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 by a rent note dated 12th note dated 12th April 1959. It is the case of the petitioner that though the shop premises were so let out to the respondent subsequently i.e. from 1970 onwards the respondent has unlawfully sublet the premises or assigned or transferred his interest therein to one Punjumal Ramchand. The petitioner therefore served an advocates notice dated 27-1-1977 on the respondent-tenant terminating the tenancy and asking him to hand over the possession. The notice stated that the respondent was in arrears of rent and also that the respondent had unlawfully sublet/transferred/assigned the shop premises. The notice however did not state as to whom the said premises were unlawfully sublet / transferred / assigned or since when. The notice was immediately replied by the respondent-defendant on 8-2-1977 wherein it was stated that the premises were let out to `Damumal Bhojumal and Damumal Bhojumal is a Hindu Undivided Family business. The said reply was given by an Advocate on behalf of his client Punjumal Ramchand who claimed to be the owner of the shop which was being run in the name of `Damumal Bhojumal. In reply it was stated that there is no single person by name of Damumal Bhojumal. The reply further stated that the shop was owned by Punjumal Ramchand and that it was being run by him from the beginning and that he was paying the rent. The reply further stated that Damumal and Bhojumal were two different persons who are members of the Hindu Undivided Family and the business of the said family was being run in their name that is in the name of `Damumal Bhojumal. The reply naturally denied that the premises were unlawfully sublet / transferred / assigned. It was also denied that there were any arrears of rent.

(3.) . In view of this reply the original petitioner filed aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 242/77 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vankaner District Rajkot seeking possession of the premises under the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act regarding arrears of rent and Section 13(1)(e) thereof regarding unlawful subletting / transferring / assignment of the Bombay Rent Act. In the plaint however it has not been stated by the petitioner plaintiff as to whom the premises were so sublet / transferred / assigned. The respondent-defendant however filed a written statement denying the allegations on the same lines as that of the reply to the quit notice.