DILIPKUMAR MULCHAND Vs. PRAFULKUMAR PARSHOTAM RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 7/11/2024, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2018, passed by 5 th Additional District Court at Vanthali District Junagadh, whereby the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 2004 passed by Principal Civil Court Manavadar has been confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioners herein shall be referred to as the original defendants and the respondents herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiffs.

(3.) The brief facts arising in the present suit is that the plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit no.113 of 2004 for eviction of the suit premises and for recovery of arrears of rent under the provisions of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, (for short "the Act"). It is the case of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff's father let out the suit premises to the defendant no.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.141.00. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the defendants locked the suit premises and left suit premises and defendant no.1 has sublet the suit premises to defendant no.2 and that defendant no.1 is not doing business at the suit premises. The plaintiff filed the suit on the ground of non payment of rent that the defendant no.1 was in arrears of rent under the provisions of the Act. In the said suit, the plaintiff also sought eviction of the suit premises from the defendants on the ground that defendant no.1 has sublet the suit premises to defendant no.2 and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act. The Trial Court after considering the documentary evidence and the oral evidence and on giving finding on all the issues, rejected the claim of the plaintiff of eviction on the ground of defendants no.1 being tenant in arrears, and the Trial Court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff on the ground of subletting i.e. under the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act. The plaintiff in the said suit had examined witnesses, the plaintiff himself at exhibit 32, (i) Dinkar Rai Purshottam Rathod at exhibit 52, (ii) Vallabhbhai Popatbhai at exhibit 79 and (iii) Rameshbhai Keshorbhai Bhatu at exhibit 83. The defendant no.1, i.e. the tenant did not enter the witness box and defendant no.2 entered the witness box and was examined vide exhibit 94. The original defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal no.37 of 2018 and the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no.113 of 2004 has been upheld and confirmed by the Appellate Court.