INDRAVADAN AMBALAL SHAH Vs. DEVIBALA RAJNIKANT DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application filed by the applicant - original defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 1999, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgement and decree dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Small Causes Court, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Regular Civil Suit No.280 of 1987.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present revision application are that the respondent No.1 deceased Devibala Rajnikant Desai (original plaintiff) had filed the suit against the applicant (original defendant), seeking recovery of the possession of the suit premises bearing Block No.7-A, Dudheshwar Society, Vadodara alleging inter alia that the defendant - tenant was in arrears of rent of more than six months; that the tenant had made material alteration of the permanent structure in the suit premises; that the defendant had acquired alternative suitable accommodation and that the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide for his personal use and occupation. It was alleged that the monthly rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 125/- and that the defendant was liable to pay all taxes, however, the defendant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 6,625/- for the period from 18.8.1981 to 17.1.1986, out of which the defendant had paid Rs. 2,000/- on 6.4.1985, and therefore, Rs. 4,625/- had remained due and payable by the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, had served a notice on 7.4.1986 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears and terminating the tenancy. It was also alleged that the defendant had not paid the arrears of rent as demanded and had given vague reply to the notice. The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the present applicant - defendant by filing written statement at Exh.13 denying allegations made in the plaint and further contending inter alia that the notice given by the plaintiff was not legal and valid, that the rent of Rs. 125/- per month was not the standard rate and that the rent was not due from 18.8.1981. The defendant had also denied that he had acquired suitable residential accommodation as alleged or that the plaintiff required the premises bona fide for his use. The trial Court had framed issues at Exh. 18 and after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit on the ground that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months prior to filing the suit. The trial Court did not believe the other grounds on which the possession was sought.