LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-628

IQBALBHAI VALIBHAI PATEL Vs. YASINBHAI SHERMOHAMMAD RANGREJ

Decided On March 28, 2017
Iqbalbhai Valibhai Patel Appellant
V/S
Yasinbhai Shermohammad Rangrej Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application, filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel &Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31.12.2016 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.8/2000, whereby the appellate Court has allowed the said appeal by setting aside the judgement and decree dated 31.12.1999 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Rent Suit No.532/1985.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present application are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed the Rent Suit seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises let out to the petitioner-defendant alleging inter alia that he required the premises for reasonable and bona fide purpose for his personal use; that the petitioner-defendant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and that the petitioner had changed the use of the suit premises. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit, against which the respondent-plaintiff had filed the appeal before the appellate Court. The said appeal has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2016 on the ground that the petitioner had acquired alternative suitable accommodation and had changed the use of the premises. Accordingly, the appellate Court has passed the decree of eviction against the petitioner on the grounds available under Section 13(1)(k) and 13(1)(L) of the said Act.

(3.) The learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mehul Shah for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the appellate Court had committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in the right perspective. According to him, the main purpose of letting the suit premises was commercial, as right from the beginning the petitioner was using the premises for running his clinic. Placing heavy reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in case of T. Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai and Anr.,reported in AIR 1952 Madras 413 , he submitted that the Court has to ascertain from the evidence as to what was the real, main and substantial purpose of letting, whether it was residential or non-residential. According to Mr.Shah, the main purpose of letting being non-residential i.e. for running the clinic only, mere acquisition of alternative residential accommodation would not be sufficient to evict the petitioner under Section 13(1)(L) of the said Act. Mr.Shah also referred to some of the oral evidence led by the parties, more particularly of the Maulavi through whom the respondent-plaintiff had let out the premises to the petitioner, to substantiate his contention that the premises was let out mainly for commercial purpose and not for residential purpose. He also submitted that the appellate Court had committed an error in holding that the petitioner had changed the use of the premises, from residential to non-residential.