MAGANLAL SHIVLAL Vs. MEMON DAUDBHAI MITHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals arise out of the two suits brought by the respondent in each Appeal to recover possession of certain shops from the appellant under the provisions of sec. 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Act). The appellant is in possession of two shops in which he carries on business and he is also in possession of one shop where he stores coal. These shops originally belonged to one Popatlal and his two brothers. The respondent-plaintiff purchased the whole building in which these shops are situate by two different sale-deeds paying aggregate sale price of Rs. 55 0 One sale deed was executed on 31-3-1958; while the other was executed on 1-11-1958. In respect of the two shops in which the appellant-defendant carries on business the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 360 of 1958 on 27-10-1958; while in respect of the shop in which coal is stored by the appellant the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 24 of 1959 on 19-1-1959. The respondent alleged in his plaints that he carried on business in various commodities and he found the premises in which he carried on business insufficient for his needs and be found them inconvenient. He also stated that he wanted to expand his business. His case for possession of the suit shops was based on two grounds; firstly that the building in which the suit shops are located was very old and that he wanted to pull down the building and build it new to suit his convenience and secondly that be bona fide and reasonably required the suit premises for his personal occupation. These two grounds were based on sec. 13(1)(h) and 13(1)(g) of the Saurashtra Act. He also alleged certain other grounds which would entitle him to possession but his claim on these grounds has been negatived by both the Courts below and we are not therefore concerned with those other grounds in the present appeals.

(2.) The trial Court held in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on both the ground about requirement of the plaintiff for personal occupation and about the requirement for the purpose of renovation The trial Court therefore passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff in both the suits.

(3.) The appellant-defendant preferred two appeals Nos. 67 and 68 of 1960 to the District Court at Surendranagar and the learned Assistant Judge in that Court who heard the said appeals held that the respondent- plaintiff was entitled to possession on the ground mentioned in sec. 13(1)(h) of the Saurashtra Act. He thought it unnecessary to decide whether the ground about personal occupation is made out or not and he dismissed both the appeals. It is against this dismissal of the appeals by the learned Assistant Judge that the appellant-defendant has preferred these two Second Appeals.