RAMESHBHAI BABARBHAI JAGIRDAR Vs. MAHENDRABHAI CHHOTALAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of a specific amount from the defendants, who are admittedly the landlords of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to the recovery of the suit amount in as much as the same was recovered from them by the defendants-landlords by way of premium and/or deposit, which was illegal and/ or not permissible under the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, maily on the ground of limitation. Although the learned Counsel for the appellants made an effort to pursuade me that the finding of the trial Court in this context is not correct, I do not propose to discuss this finding in detail in view of the following considerations.

(3.) It is an admitted fact, and in fact, asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants-landlords had recovered a certain amount from the plaintiffs, which amount, according to the plaintiffs would amount to an illegal recovery since the same was prohibited by specific provisions of the Bombay Rent Act or at any rate, not authorised by the Rent Act. The suit was, therefore, filed by the appellants for the purpose of recovering this amount back from the landlords.