MOHMED SUFI NOORMOHMED Vs. RATILAL RAMBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These orders shall govern the disposal of these six Civil Revision Applications, arising under Sec. 28 of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947. The Civil Revision Application Nos. 693 of 1979, 694 of 1979 and 695 of 1979 have been filed by the tenants, who suffered a decree of eviction under Sec. 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, at the hands of the Appellate Court. The remaining three Civil Revision Applications have been presented by the landlords, because they feel that, their case for the decree of eviction on certain other grounds like, the non-payment of the rent for a period of more than six months and bona fide personal requirement etc. should have been recognised by the Courts below. It would be appropriate, if the three Civil Revision Applications falling under the first group are taken for decision.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the owners and the landlords of Final Plot bearing F. P. No. 581, within the T. P. Scheme No. 3, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, having the area of about 2,625 sq.yds. Originally, the landlords had filed 11 Suits to recover the possession from all the tenants existing in different structures on the said land. Except for the four Suits, the rest of the Suits came to be compromised. According to the plaintiffs, upon the said final plot, there is one chawl touching the southern boundary and there are certain rooms on the ground floor. Some rooms are also having the upper storey construction. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that, the defendants were the tenants in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and that they were not ready and willing to pay the rent. In fact, according to the plaintiffs, they had failed and neglected to pay the rent for a pretty long time. It was also the case of the plaintiffs, in these Suits that, they wanted to demolish the whole chawl and wanted to construct a new chawl with residential blocks for the technicians working in their factory. They also wanted to construct two residential bugalows on the northern back of the plot. Their case further was that, the said structures under which the defendants-tenants used to reside, were in violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation, and that the previous owners and the landlords had executed an agreement, popularly known as, "Kabulat" in favour of the erstwhile Municipality of Ahmedabad saying that, they would demolish the construction, at any time, if the Municipality so orders. The Municipality, now, has been converted into the Corporation and according to the plaintiffs, now, there is an order from the Corporation, calling upon them to demolish the above said construction and, therefore, also, they were entitled to a decree of eviction under Sec. 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947. Their case further also was that, some of the tenants have sub-let the premises to different persons, unlawfully, and that, therefore, also, they were liable to be evicted from the Suit premises. The defendants had resisted the Suits, by filing separate written statement, in the Suits, inter alia, contending that there was no personal or bona fide requirement on the part of the plaintiffs-landlords and that the sole idea on their part was to see that the tenants vacate the premises, at any rate. They have also contended that, one Shri Thakker who was holding the position of Deputy Municipal Commissioner in the Corporation, happened to be a relative of the plaintiff No. 2, since deceased, and therefore, the plaintiffs had tried to obtain the necessary notice from the Municipal Corporation, so that, ultimately, the defendants could be evicted on that basis.

(3.) Upon the appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree of eviction, on any of the above said grounds. The finding recorded by the trial Court is that, the plaintiffs could not establish that, any of the defendants had, unlawfully, sub-let the premises in question. The trial Court had also taken the view that the plaintiffs could not establish that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for their personal use and occupation. It was also the view of the trial Court that, the plaintiffs-landlords could not establish that, the premises were required by the plaintiffs for the immediate purpose of demolition, under the orders of the Corporation, as understood within the meaning of Sec. 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947. Coming to this conclusion, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss all the Suits of the plaintiffs. Anyhow, the standard rent of the Suit premises came to be fixed. The plaintiffs were granted the decree qua the rent dues, against the respective tenant.