SAVITABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. KIRITKUMAR BHALACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, at Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 11/87 passed, on 26-4-96, setting aside the judgment and decree passed in HRP Suit No. 928/82, and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the demise premises, by filing this revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act).

(2.) The respondent is the original plaintiff and landlord of the demise premise consisting of one room and kitchen situated on the ground floor of bungalow No. 50 in Jitendra Park Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Narayannagar Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad, who instituted the above suit for recovery of arrears of rent and vacant possession of the demise premises on the following grounds :

(3.) The respondent-original-plaintiff, inter alia contended in the plaint that original defendant No. 1, Savitaben, was in arrears of rent from 5-6-80 and in spite of various demands and even a notice, no payment was made. It was also contended that defendant No. 1, Savitaben, and her son had constructed a large bungalow in Champapuri, Co-op. Housing Society Limited near Prabhudas Thakkar College, Paldi, Ahmedabad and they had gone to reside in the said bungalow. Thus, it was the contention of the plaintiff-landlord that the tenant has acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The plaintiff also pleaded that the original defendant Savitaben, has unlawfully sublet or assigned the interest of the suit premises to defendant Nos. 2 & 3. It was also the case of the plaintiff-landlord that the sub-tenants were guilty of conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance. The defendants jointly submitted written statement Ex. 8 wherein they denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was also contended that agreed rent of Rs. 80 per month in excessive and standard rent should be fixed. The grounds stated for eviction in the plaint are denied.