LAWS(GJH)-2018-8-388

ANILBHAI NARAYANSHANKER JANI HEIRS OF LATE BAI MAHALAXMI Vs. MOHANBHAI KAKARAM SHARMA AKASHDEEP TRANSPORT COMPANY

Decided On August 24, 2018
Anilbhai Narayanshanker Jani Heirs Of Late Bai Mahalaxmi Appellant
V/S
Mohanbhai Kakaram Sharma Akashdeep Transport Company Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') has been filed by the original defendant. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff and they shall be described in the present judgement as defendant and plaintiff respectively. The defendant is constrained to file this revision as by a judgement and decree passed in HRP Suit No. 306 of 1995 dated 22.01.2002, which was confirmed in the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2002 by the Appellate Bench on 27.01.2005, the defendant was directed to hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff - original tenant.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:

(3.) The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the defendant has not been able to discharge the burden of proof that the plaintiff had voluntarily surrendered the tenancy rights. According to the learned trial Judge, it was evident from the rent receipt at Ex. 47 which was dated 16.09.1993 and from the certificate of the Bank of India at Ex. 88 and the copies of the cheques at Exs. 90 and 91 that the plaintiff had paid the rent and the defendant had deposited the cheques in the account towards such rent. The testimony of the Bank Officers was enough to accept the submission of the plaintiff that the cheques were genuine. The learned trial Judge held that the attempt by the defendant that the suit premises was let out to the Gujarat Investment and Finance Consultancy on the plaintiff surrendering the agency was also not proved because the defendant himself was not consistent in his version. No rent receipt was produced by the defendant to substantiate the stand that the business of Gujarat Industrial and Finance Consultancy was let out to any other tenant. The trial Court believed the version of the plaintiff that he had started a business in investment and finance consultancy due to the slackness in the transport business.