RASIKLAL A DAVE Vs. NARMADABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a revision petition under Article 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, at the instance of the tenant against the judgment and decree dated 1.5.96 passed by the Joint District Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1983, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.1.93 passed in Regular civil Suit No. 28 of 1978 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalawad. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the suit premises, which were let out to the tenant at a monthly lease were required by him bona fide for his personal residence and residence of his family. The suit at the first instance was however dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the landlord made an application, seeking amendment in the plaint for adding an additional ground that as the tenant, since after coming into force of the Act and after creation of the tenancy has built a house, which is suitable for his residence, the tenant was required to be evicted. The appellate court allowed the application and after setting the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, remanded the matter back to the trial court with an opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence in the matter. The trial court, after receiving the records, allowed the parties to lead evidence, but after hearing the parties had again dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant took up the matter in appeal before the learned Joint District Judge, Jamnagar, who, by the judgment and decree, decreed the suit and directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant is now before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the newly constructed premises are not suitable for the residence of the tenant, order for eviction could not be passed. He submits that the suit premises are being occupied by the tenant and other members of his family, while newly built house is occupied by his another son, who happens to be a government servant. He submits that as both the premises are being used and occupied by the tenant and his family members, the order of eviction is bad. Learned counsel for the other side has opposed the revision application.

(3.) It is to be seen that the demised premises consists of two rooms, a latrine and a bathroom only. The newly built house consists of two rooms, a kitchen, latrine and a bathroom. The accommodation built by the tenant is more than the area, which is at present under occupation by the tenant. If to accommodate his son, he does not shift to the newly built house, the landlord cannot be allowed to suffer the tenant. A son who is independent in his earning and who happens to be a government servant, would not be deemed to be a member of the family of the tenant for the purposes of the Rent Act. This Court could appreciate the argument if it was submitted by the tenant that newly built house was occupied by some of his family members who are dependent upon the tenant. When a person occupying newly built premises is not dependent upon the tenant, then, the tenant cannot be allowed to say that he would construct a new house, would give it to his son, who is independent and but would occupy the premises which were taken on lease.