INDUMATI BABUBHAI KAPADIA Vs. NAGINDAS UTTAMRAM DUDHWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is difficult to get premises on rent but it is also extremely difficult to retain the possession of the rented premises for there is no limit to the ingenuity of people who can afford to adopt means fair or foul for securing vacant possession of the rented premises. The case on hand shows now difficult it was for tenant to protect his possession.

(2.) Both the Civil Revision Applications pertain to the dispute in respect of the property situated at Rampura Main Road Surat bearing Survey No. 76 Ward No. 12. The petitioner of Civil Revision Application No. 235/78 is the landlord while the petitioner of C.R.A. No. 476/78 is the tenant. The landlord filed Civil Suit No. 665/75 in the Small Causes Court at Surat under the provisions of the Rent Act and prayed for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises which consisted of one room and open wada on the ground-floor and one room on the first floor. The rent of the suit premises was Rs. 10/- per month. The plaintiff purchased this property by a sale deed dated February 18 1970 Exh. 91 and 1 hereafter he served a notice upon the Defendant No. 1 tenant claiming arrears of rent and also the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The Defendant No. 1 i.e. the tenant replied to the notice vide Exh. 87 dated March 28 1970 The landlord filed the suit for recovery of possession on July 6 1970 The landlord advanced the grounds of bonafide personal requirement; nuisance and annoyance caused by the tenant and also alleged that part of the suit premises was sub-let to Defendant No. 2 at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- per month and that the defendant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and that he failed to pay the entire amount of arrears despite one months notice. Therefore on the aforesaid grounds and allegations made by the plaintiff landlord it was prayed that the tenant was required to be evicted from the suit premises.

(3.) On the other hand the tenant filed Civil Suit No. 147/76 and prayed that he was the tenant of southern portion of Wada land over and above the portion of the premises which were admittedly in the possession of the tenant i.e. Defendant No. 1. The Trial Court consolidated both the suits with the consent of the parties. Further the evidence that has been led is also common. Both the parties advanced their argument on the common question of law and facts that arose in the matter. By a common judgment the Trial Court disposed of both the matters and ordered to dismiss the suit filed by the respective plaintiff. Both of them felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. There-fore both of them preferred appeals before the appellate court under the provisions of the Rent Act. Eventually both the appeals have also been dismissed and the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Both the parties i.e. plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 665/75 and the plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 147/76 have preferred revision application in this High Court and that is how Civil Revision Application No. 235/78 (filed by the original landlord) and Civil Revision Application No. 476/ 78 (filed by original tenant) have come up before this High Court. C.R.A. No. 235/78