SHIVLAL GOVINDLAL SUKHADIYA Vs. DHARMESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this revision application under section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the rent Act") and challenged the legality of judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad on 24. 3. 1983 in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1981 partly allowing the appeal and passing a decree of eviction directing the appellant defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop, more particularly described in para 1 of the plaint within a period of three months' and to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 105/- per month.

(2.) THE respondent (since deceased) filed a suit for arrears of rent and possession of suit premises contending that the suit premises was rented to the defendant at the monthly rent of Rs. 110/- plus municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 16. 19paisa per month. It was also contended that the defendant had paid Rs. 2508/- against Rs. 3688. 51 paisa. Therefore, he was called upon to pay Rs. 1180. 51paisa and to vacate the suit premises by serving a registered notice dated 9. 4. 1973. It was also contended that the plaintiff was running his dispensary on the first floor of the suit premises and as he had suffered heart-attack, he required the suit premises for his personal use and occupation. Therefore, the suit was filed for arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement Exh-13 and contended that the rent of Rs. 150/- per month is excessive and therefore, had filed an application to fix standard rent of the suit premises. It was also contended that the landlord was required to pay all the municipal taxes, education cess etc. and that he was paying rent regularly and not committed any default. It was also contended that the plaintiff was permanently staying at Petlad and visited Nadiad only on 3 days in a week. Therefore, it is not true that the premises was required for his personal use. Therefore, the suit is required to be dismissed.