KRISHANAKUMAR D Vs. VINUBHAI SHANTILAL SANGHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Civil Revision Application, the petitioners-original defendants tenants in respect of the suit premises have challenged the judgment dated 17-7-1995 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 71/93 whereby the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23-7-1993 passed in HRP Suit No. 1751/83.

(2.) The facts pertaining to the case are as under : The respondent-plaintiff had filed HRP Suit No. 1751/83 in Small Causes Court No. 13 at Ahmedabad against Shri Krishnakumar Devdatta Sehgal for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff wanted to have the suit premises for his bona fide personal use especially because his children wanted to reside in the suit premises for their studies. It was also submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant had not paid rent from 15-7-1982 to 14-4-1983 and thereby the defendant was in arrears of rent. During the pendency of the above-referred suit, the defendant expired and thereafter wife and children of late Shri Krishnakumar Sehgal were joined as defendants who have been described herein below as defendants.

(3.) The Trial Court was pleaded to dismiss the suit by coming to a conclusion that the defendants were not in arrears and the plaintiff was not having bona fide requirement of the suit premises. It is pertinent to note here that in para-3 of the plaint, it was submitted by the plaintiff that he was not paid rent for a period commencing from 15-7-1982 to 14-4-1983 and the premises in question were required for personal bona fide requirement of the plaintiff. Though, no specific averment with regard to retirement of the plaintiff was made in para-3 of the plaint, the plaintiff had averred that he was transferred to Godhara and, therefore, the suit premises were required for his children as they were studying at Ahmedabad. At the relevant time, the plaintiff was residing at Baroda in Govt. Quarter as the plaintiff was in a Govt. service. As the plaintiff was a Govt. servant at the relevant time, he was transferred to Godhara and in the circumstances, he had averred in the plaint that the suit premises were required as his children wanted to stay at Ahmedabad for their studies. At the time when the plaintiff was examined by the Trial Court in August 1992, the plaintiff had retired from service and, therefore, he had stated in his examination-in-chief that after his retirement, he wanted to stay in his own premises at Ahmedabad. He had further stated that he was staying in the premises of his friend Shri C. D. Singh at Baroda at the relevant time and as Mr. C. D. Singh wanted to have premises in which the petitioner was staying, it had become necessary for the plaintiff to have possession of the suit premises.