JAYALAXMI TRAMBAKLAL PANDYA Vs. SHANTILAL CHUNILAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlady, instituted Civil Suit No. 242 of 1983 in the Court of Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court, at Rajkot against the respondent-tenant to recover possession of suit premises being one room, one kitchen, Osri and store room situated in the building known as "Ambika Bhuvan" at Junction Plot, Street No. 6 at Rajkot. Monthly rent of suit premises was stated to be Rs. 250/ - p.m. and it was alleged that the respondent-tenant was in arrears of rent and was also liable to pay house tax, education cess, sanitation charges, electricity charges, etc., It was alleged that the defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,590/- and therefore, rent was demanded by notice, dated July 8, 1983 while the defendant failed to pay up arrears and therefore, he was liable to be evicted being a tenant who has neglected to make payment of arrears of rent despite service of notice. Second ground on which eviction was sought was to the effect that the tenant has shifted from Rajkot to Jamnagar along with his family since last more than 12 months and that he was not using the suit premises continuously over a period of more than 6 months from the date of suit and therefore, eviction was sought on the ground of non-user under Sec. 13(1)(k) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The third ground on which the possession was sought was that the defendant-tenant has after coming into operation of the Act built and acquired vacant possession of suitable residence. In this connection it was contended that the defendant-tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Rajkot for his residence on Kalawad Road, Near St. Mary's School. The eviction, therefore, was sought under Sec. 13(1)(L) of the said Act. Fourthly, it was alleged that the respondent-landlady reasonably and bona fide required for occupation by herself and members of her family the suit premises and that if a decree for possession is passed in favour of the landlady no hardship will be caused to respondent-tenant. In short, the possession was sought under Sec. 13(1)(g) of the said Act.

(2.) On service of summons the respondent-tenant appeared and filed written statement Exh. 13. He disputed amount of rent being Rs. 250.00 p.m. and contended that he was occupying one room, one kitchen, Osri and one store room at the rate of Rs. 131.00 p.m. and that over and above the rent he was paying Rs. 2.50 ps. for water charges, Rs. 4.00 for education cess and thus in all he was paying Rs. 137.50 ps. per month. He contended that Rs. 250.00 p.m. was not standard rent and that said demand was unreasonable and excessive. He further submitted that he has also sent M. O. to the plaintiff on 16th May 1982 and it was for Rs. 687.50 ps. beginning from January 1983 to May 1983 which was refused by the plantiff and therefore, the rent was deposited in the Court after 1st June 1984. He submitted that he has also replied to the notice and has pointed out that he was ready and willing to pay the rent and was not in arrears of rent. As regards ground of non-user under Sec. 13(1)(k) he submitted that he was transferred to Jamnagar since last more than 12 months and therefore, it was not correct to state that he was not using the said premises without any reasonable cause for more than 6 months. He further submitted that the members of his family were residing at Rajkot and suit premises were being used as it was not correct to state that there was non-user. As against the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation he submitted that he has acquired residential accommodation of his ownership, but firstly it was outside the limits of Municipal Corporation of Rajkot and therefore, it cannot be said to be alternative accommodation and secondly he contended that since he was serving in Railway, the suit premises being nearer to Railway station was more suitable and convenient to his job while the premises acquired by him was situated far away and was not suitable. Thirdly, he contended that the premises acquired by him were not suitable as they were smaller in area. As against the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the landlady he denied that the landlady was in need of the suit premises for personal and bona fide requirement. He submitted that the number of members in the family of the landlady has remained same and therefore, ground of personal and bona fide requirement was got up one and false and no decree for possession should be passed on that ground.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the two Courts below the petitioner-landlady has preferred this revision application under Sec. 29(2) of the said Act and at the hearing of this revision application, has pressed for decree of eviction of the tenant and for possession of suit premises solely on the ground of acquisition of suitable residential accommodation by the respondent-tenant under Sec. 13(1)(L) of the said Act. It may be stated that with respect to other findings reached by the two Courts below concurrently no challenge is made before this Court and therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to refer to and rely upon concurrent findings reached by the two Courts below.