SUMATILAL SARABHAI Vs. MANORAMA JAYANTILAL SHAH SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the original plaintiffs of the civil suit no. 1624 of 1969 of the City Civil Court Ahmedabad where they had rome to lose their suit filed for possession of the property from one Bai Manorama the sole defendant who is now represented by her heirs and legal representatives she having died during the pendency of this appeal.

(2.) The case presents a peculiar situation calling for consideration of the legal overtones of an act of surrender by the husband who was admittedly the contracting party in the matter of an agreement of lease. The appellants-original plaintiffs are admittedly the landlords of the premises in question which was hired by the abovesaid Bai Manoramas husband Jayantilal Amratlal Shah who is the respondent No. 1 before this court in his capacity as one of the heirs and legal representatives of Bai Manorama the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 being her minor children. In the year 1969 the husband and the wife were living together in the suit premises but the husband and the wife had fallen out to such an extent that on 29-5-69 the husband left the premises along with his bags and baggages. He was so much annoyed with his wife that he went to the landlords and surrendered his tenancy. He also gave a writing Ex. 47 to the effect that he had relinquished his possession of the premises in favour of the landlord and had even handed over the vacant possession thereof. The fact that the husband had left the house with all his kits was acceptable even to deceased Manorama as could be seen from her notice Ex. 14 dated 1-7-69 which she had given to the landlord because the landlord had already entered the premises unauthorisedly and had locked the kitchen which was a part of the rented premises. By the said notice she had threatened the landlord with prosecution for criminal trespass and had charged the landlord with having acted in collusion with her husband. Even in the course of her evidence recorded at Ex. 43 she had stated as follows :

(3.) It therefore cannot be denied that out of desperation Jayantilal had physically left the premises and had even intimated the landlord that he was cutting all the contractual ties between him and the landlord.