RAMANLAL MANILAL SHAH DIED Vs. GOVINDLAL PURSHOTTAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed by the landlords-plaintiffs by virtue of Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "The Rent Act", bringing under challenge the dismissal of the Suit bearing H.R.P. Suit No. 2858 of 1975 as per the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, on 30th June 1977 and dismissal of their Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1977 filed against the said judgment of the trial Court. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, being the appellate Court, dismissed the said Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1977 on 4th March 1980. That is how the plaintiffs are before this Court.

(2.) The facts in brief as alleged by the plaintiffs indicate that the plaintiffs had an occasion to file the aforesaid suit against the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent; that he was guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance; that he has acquired suitable residence in Plot No. 80 of Nirmal Society, Ahmedabad; that the plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation and that the defendant was liable to pay arrears of rent, mesne profits and municipal tax amounting to Rs. 1,739.00. The defendant resisted the suit as per Written Statement Ex. 13, inter alia alleging that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata and estoppel, that he was not a tenant in arrears of rent; that he did not acquire any suitable residence and that the case of the plaintiffs regarding nuisance and annoyance as well as personal requirement was not proved.

(3.) The trial Court framed issues arising from the aforesaid pleadings and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to decree for eviction under Sec. 12 of the Rent Act; that ground of nuisance and annoyance was not pressed as per Ex. 33; that the ground of acquisition of suitable acquisition was not proved; that the plaintiffs did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide and that hardship of the defendant would be greater if the decree for eviction was passed; that the suit was not barred by principle of res judicata and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the claim of Rs. 1,739.00.