VINAYKANT CHIMANLAL PARIKH Vs. JANAKBEN JAYESHBHAI PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to have entered into a Lease and Licence Agreement with the respondent for running Jigna Classes, initially for a period of nine months. Thereafter he continued to be in possession and continued to pay the agreed amount to the landlady,respondent Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 3000/- towards maintenance. However, after a period of nine months, the said agreement was not renewed. The petitioner apprehending dispossession by the respondent,landlady, filed H. R. P. Suit No. 2465/2005 before the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and/or her servant, agent or representative from dispossessing the petitioner from the said suit premises. The Small Causes Court dismissed the Suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction holding that the petitioner cannot be considered as a tenant. The judgment was rendered on 13. 1. 2006. That order came to be challenged before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court by preferring Appeal from Order No. 1/2006, which also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 20. 1. 2006. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Sunil Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Bukhari for the petitioner, and learned advocate Mr. Chinmay Gandhi for the respondent.

(3.) SINCE this petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court first examined if there was any jurisdictional error or legal perversity in the order under challenge, but, found none. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner, however, relied on the decision in the case of Bharvad Chhota Bhaga vs. Bharvad Jaga Dahya, AIR 1999 Gujarat 17, in support of his submission that the plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage including the stage of execution.