RADHABEN KRISHANDAS BHEDA Vs. HEMLATABEN INDUKUMAR RAJANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, having failed in appeal he had filed in District Court at Bhuj against the judgment and decree passed by the then learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Bhuj directing him to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises, by this revision application challenges the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed against him.

(2.) The facts which led the present petitioner to prefer this revision application may in brief be stated. There is a plot bearing No. 71 in Vijaynagar area at Bhuj. On that plot the respondent has constructed her house. The first floor of the house bearing old block No. 10/6-160, the new number of which is 10/38-64, is let to the present petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs. 225.00 exclusive of the taxes and charges. The petitioner is the medical officer serving in the Government hospital. He is having transferable job. In the year 1984 he was transferred from Bhuj to Mandvi. Thereafter, he did not use the first floor (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) let to him. For a period of more than six months he is not using the suit premises for the purpose for which they are let. The petitioner is also allotted with the residential quarter at Mandvi. He has, thus, acquired another suitable premises for his residence. The respondent, therefore, asked the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession thereof, but the petitioner paid no heed. The respondent was, therefore, constrained to prefer Regular Civil Suit No. 276 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhuj under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the "Bombay Rent Act"). The suit was assigned to the then Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

(3.) After being served with the summons, the petitioner appeared before the Court. He filed his written statement Exh. 15 denying the case levelled against him and submitting further that he is using the suit premises. After he was transferred from Bhuj to Mandvi he was again transferred to Gandhidham from Mandvi. His counterpart at Gandhidham vice whom he was posted filed a suit and obtained interim relief. The implementation of the transfer order was stayed, with the result the petitioner could not take over his charge at Gandhidham and had to proceed on leave from 10th March 1990 to 4th June 1990. During this period of leave he stayed in the suit premises. Thereafter on 5th June 1990 he resumed his duties as Medical Officer at Mandvi. He is Class-I Officer. He has to perform his duties all over the district. He has to attend co-ordination meeting at Bhuj and many other meetings held periodically at Bhuj. During the visit of V.I.P., in the district, he was required to attend the meeting arranged in that connection, or remain with V.I.P., so as to take care of his health till he left the Dist. Centre. Hence, often he was going to Bhuj and staying in the suit premises. Accordingly, for about 5 months during the period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit he stayed in the suit premises at Mandvi. He is unmarried, but his parents also resided in the suit premises. With a view to get the possession any how, the case about non-user was made out. The learned Judge then framed necessary issues at Exh. 18. Appreciating the evidence before him he reached the conclusions that the respondent had established the case of non-user, as well as acquisition of the suitable premises by the petitioner, and on that counts he passed the decree of eviction on 10th March 1997. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1997 in the District Court, Kuchchh-Bhuj at Bhuj. The appeal was assigned to the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Bhuj who hearing the parties on 28th January 1998 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) at Bhuj. It is against that judgment and decree, the present revision application has been filed by the petitioner-original defendant in the suit.