MANHARLAL NENSHI Vs. MEENA AGENCIES RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Jayant M. Patel appears and waives service for the opponent.

(2.) This is a gross case which shows how an unscrupulous landlord can dupe his tenant to part with possession on the pretext that he will repair and renovate the tenanted premises within a specified time and subsequently keep the tenant out indefinitely under one pretext or the other. The petitioner herein is the landlord who obtained possession from the respondent-tenant after obtaining a consent decree in the suit filed by the respondent-tenants whereby the respondent had to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner landlord and pay him a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 as and by way of the cost for the repairs and renovation to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the tenant handing over possession to the landlord. Accordingly the respondent-tenant handed over vacant possession of the suit shop to the petitioner-landlord on 8-8-1985. He also paid by cheque a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 on 13-8-1985. After obtaining the possession and the amount the petitioner-landlord did not complete the repairs and renovation within the specified time. Hence the respondent-tenant was compelled to file Regular Civil Suit being No. 178/85 in the Small Causes Court at Rajkot on 21-11-1985 for obtaining injunction restraining the petitioner-landlord from carrying out construction of other shops in the building till he completed the repairs and renovation of the suit shop.

(3.) ?It is submitted by Mr. Jayant M. Patel the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant that the petitioner-landlord has utilised the money paid by the respondent-tenant for the purpose of repairs and renovation of other shops adjacent to the suit shop and has handed over possession of those shops by obtaining large sums of Paghadi to the new tenants. It is also contended by Mr. Patel that the petitioner-landlord has deliberately failed and neglected to complete the repairs and renovation in the suit shop with a view to harass the respondent and to cause him great financial loss. According to him the respondent has already suffered very heavy financial loss on account of his business having been disrupted. He has therefore urged that appropriate directions be given to the petitioner-landlord to complete the repairs and renovation within specified time and hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent-tenant.