MADHUBEN MAGANLAL RAYCHURI Vs. RAMCHANDRA BECHARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision under Sec. 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) is directed against the Judgment and Decree recorded in H.R.P. Suit No. 238 of 1974 by the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1978 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.

(2.) The petitioner is the original plaintiff who instituted above suit for declaration that she is the tenant of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census No. 2/112/5 situated in Jahangirpura Revenue Scheme in Bhogilal's Chawl No. 2 and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit premises. The plaintiff also prayed for fixation of standard rent. According to the case of the original plaintiff suit premises belonged to opponentsoriginal defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and that original defendant No. 5, one Gokul Mohan who was the tenant in the suit premises in the year 1958 had vacated and thereafter plaintiff became the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3.50 ps. and since then she has been residing in the suit premises along with her family. The opponents-original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 appeared and resisted the suit by filing written * against the judgment and decree recorded in H.R.P. Suit No. 238 of 1974 by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1978 by the Appellate Bench. statement, Exh. 17 inter alia contending that the plaintiff and original defendant No. 1 in collusion have filed false suit preventing them from enjoying the fruit of the decree passed in their favour for eviction in H.R.P. Suit No. 5838 of 1971. The averments made in the plaint were seriously challenged. The right of the plaintiff to be the tenant in a suit premises is denied. The original defendant No. 5 did not appear and resist the suit. The suit proceeded ex-parte.

(3.) In the light of the facts and circumstances and the pleadings between the parties, issues came to be settled at Exh. 22. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the trial Court reached to the conclusion that the petitionersoriginal plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the tenant of original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in suit premises. The judgment and decree passed in the suit by the trial Court came to be challenged in the aforesaid appeal which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court in this revision.