DAULATRAM KHITUMAL UDHARANI Vs. RAJENDRABHAI JAYANTILAL TAILOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant-tenant against whom the respondent-landlord filed the suit for eviction being Reg. Civil Suit No. 129 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Rajpipla, who decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiffs and in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1986 preferred in the Court of Extra Assistant Judge, Broach he partially allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 30th July, 1992 by holding that the respondent-plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the suit premises under S.13(1)(l) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act", and set partially aside the decree of the trial Court while reversing the judgment and order of the trial Court for decree for possession on the ground available under Secs. 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(g) of the said Act. Shortly speaking the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Broach confirmed the decree for possession in against the decree passed by the Asstt. Judge, Bharuch in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1986 confirming the decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajpipla in Reg. Civil Suit No. 129 of 1983. favour of respondent-plaintiffs mainly on the ground that they were entitled to possession of suit premises as the petitioner-tenant has acquired suitable residential accommodation and was, therefore, liable to be evicted under S.13(1)(l) of the said Act.

(2.) The trial Court being Civil Judge (J.D.) at Rajpipla by judgment and decree, dated 30-9-1986 came to conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has changed the user of the premises and that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide and that the plaintiff will suffer greater hardship if decree of eviction is refused. So far as the findings recorded by the trial Court on these issues were concerned, it must be stated that before the lower appellate Court it was conceded by the plaintiff himself that the decree for eviction under S.13(1)(g) was not sustainable because a person who was in need of premises was not examined and has not stated that he required the suit premises for his personal use and bona fide requirement. His Advocate also fairly conceded that the judgment and decree of the trail Court against the opponent on that ground cannot be upheld and therefore, it is not required for this Court to decide the question of entitlement of the landlord for a decree of eviction under S.13(1)(g) of the said Act.

(3.) As regards issue No. 4 as to whether the landlord proved that the defendant has acquired suitable premises the trial Court recorded finding in favour of landlord and held that the landlord was entitled to decree for possession. This judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30-9-1986 was challenged by the petitioner-tenant by preferring Reg. Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1986 and the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Broach by judgment and decree, dated 30-7-1992 partially allowed the appeal but confirmed the decree of possession of the suit premises under S.13(1)(l) of the said Act. It is the said decree which is under challenge in this revision application before this Court.