DOLATRAI HARJIVAN BIBODI Vs. KANTILAL SUKHLAL SHAH DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-landlords have come in this Revi- sion-Application as both the Courts have refused to pass the decree of eviction from the suit block after the defendant-tenant had shifted to his newly constructed bungalow on October 20 1969

(2.) The short facts which have given rise to this litigation are as under. The defendant Dr. Kantilal Shah has been a tenant in the suit house of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute as to whether the first block was given in 1946 as stated by the defendant or in 1948 as stated by the plaintiffs or whether this suit block which has been almost for all the time used as residential block was first let or after some short time as conten- ded by the defendant. The defendant however had also got from time to time three other blocks in this very building. Thereafter when in 1958 the defendant shifted to the hospital premises near Dandia Hanuman where he had got four blocks out of which one he occupied for his residence and three for his hospital the defendant gave up possession of two ground-floor blocks to the plaintiff in 1958 and even the third block possession was given to the plaintiff in 1964. Thereafter the defendant constructed his residential bungalow in about 1967 where admittedly there are four bed-rooms one dining-cum-living room one kitchen store room 3000 square feet built constructed area with rooms for Chowkidar quarter and garage. The defendant Doctor has a family of five persons He shifted to these new premises on October 20 1969 but still he did not vacate this residential block of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs gave a notice Exhibit 31 on April 5 1970 to which the defendant having given an evasive reply Ex.28 on April 29 1970 the plaintiffs filed the present suit for eviction

(3.) The defendant Doctor raised a plea both in his correspondence and in the written statement that the entire house had been taken on lease by the defendant for running his hospital Nursing Home and for the residence of his family members Doctors and staff members. He also stated in terms in his written statement in paragraph 5 that in addition to the suit block in the other three blocks which he had taken on lease from the plaintiffs the defendant was running his hospital and when in 1958 he got space for hospital near Dandia Hanuman the three blocks had been handed over to the plaintiffs. He also stated in the written statement that the present suit block was however needed for the residence of his brother Dr. D. S. Shah who was a member of his staff and so the suit block was utilised for the purpose for which it was let. In the newly constructed premises there was not sufficient space for staff quarters. Both the Courts also gave a finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit premises were let to the defendant only for residence and not for Nursing Home and staff quarters and therefore the original letting being not only for residential purpose of the suit premises the ground under sec. 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act was held not to be applicable. That is how the plaintiffs have come in this revision.