RAJAN RATILAL PATEL Vs. MADHURIBEN RAMENDRABHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. R. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the Caveator-respondent. This is a tenant's Revision under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') against the order of the 6th Extra Asstt. Judge, Vadodara dated 16-9-1997 whereby the learned Judge confirmed the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 160 of 1989 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara.

(2.) The plaintiff-Madhuriben Desai filed a rent suit being R.C.S. No. 160 of 1989 in the Small Causes Court, Vadodara seeking decree for eviction on the ground under Sec. 13(i)(g) of the Act. Her husband who was serving in Godrej Company in Delhi since 1958, was provided residential accommodation by the company, but on retirement they have vacated the said premises of the company. Before retirement of her husband in the year 1988, she wrote a letter to the tenant stating that her husband wishes to pass his remaining life at their native place at Vadodara and it would not be possible for them to stay at Delhi after retirement. Thus, a request was made to vacate the premises. The defendant-tenant did not accede to the plaintiff's request and as such, on retirement of her husband on 6-4-1988, they were compelled to stay back in Delhi in a rented premises, on monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/- per month. The further say of the plaintiff is that because of the old age, they cannot bear the severe hot and cold climate of Delhi. It is not possible for them to further stay at Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-tenant is doing the business of construction work. He has earned lot of money in construction work, as such he is a person of sound financial condition.

(3.) The petitioner-defendant contested the suit. It is stated that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for bona fide residential purpose. It was also averred that the defendant has no house in his possession in Vadodara, and therefore, if he is asked to vacate the suit premises, he will suffer greater hardship.