KANSARA MOHANLAL KANJI Vs. CHHIPA DARJI NATHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff had filed a suit being civil suit No. 208 of 1969 in the court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Jamnagar to recover possession of the suit premises situate within the limits of the city of Jamnagar on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that the premises had not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. The learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Jamnagar held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-payment of rent- He however took the view that the defendant had not used the suit premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceeding the date of the suit and passed a decree for eviction. The appeal preferred by the defendant from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge was dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge Jamnagar on 3rd February 1971. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge the defendant had come in revision to this court. The revision application preferred by the defendant was heard by J. M. Sheth J. who by his judgment dated 17th January 1974 allowed the civil revision application and remanded the matter to the District Court for re-hearing regular civil appeal No. 161 of 1970. After the matter was remanded the appeal in question was held by the learned Assistant Judge Jamnagar and he dismissed it on 29th June 1974. Being aggrieved by his judgment the defendant has come in revision to this court. The revision application (civil revision application No. 805 of 1974 came up for hearing before B. K. Mehta J In view of the importance of the question and two decisions of the court which according to him were conflicting he referred the matter to a larger bench and this is how this matter his come up for hearing before us.

(2.) After the matter was remanded to the District Court the learned Assistant Judge who happened to hear the appeal raised the following point for his determination :

(3.) According to the plaintiff the suit premises were let to the defend- ant only for the purpose of carrying on business and in view of the provisions of sec. 13(1) (k) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act he was not justified in using the suit premises for the purpose of writing books of account or handling correspondence even in respect of his business.