DEVDATT NARAYAN SHETTI Vs. PRAHLADBHAI PUNJIRAM PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present group of Civil Revision Applications are filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as to the "Act") arising out of common question of law and facts except the number of property and the suit. The same are requested to be disposed of and dealt with by present common judgment and order by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Accordingly, the Court has considered the same by treating Civil Revision Application No.212 of 2018 as a lead matter. The conclusion and the background would govern the other revision applications hence, facts are taken from the aforesaid lead matter.

(2.) The case of the petitioner - plaintiff is that he is the owner of property known as Udipi Hotel premises in Paldi in T.P. Scheme No. 3/6 varied in final Plot No.843 in which the respondent is a monthly tenant in the property bearing M.C.No.30/2011 at a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. The tenancy was on the basis of calendar month. The property in question previously belonged to one Kantilal Veljibhai Savala and Reupesh Kantilal Savala, which came to be purchased with tenant's possession by sale deed, dated 07.06.2000 with a right to recover past arrears of rent from the tenants. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent was in arrears of rent right from 01.08.1988. The attornment notice was given by the petitioner after the execution of sale deed and the respondent was asked to pay and clear the arrears of rent having not complied with the present petitioner, and therefore, H.R.P. Suit No.2310 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad for recovery of possession of rent. The said suit proceeded and the same came to be dismissed on 31.01.2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, present respondent tenant had also filed H.R.P. Suit No.9191 of 2001 against the previous landlord Kantilal Veljibhai for temporary as well as permanent injunction, but the said Kantilal Veljibhai did not appear in the suit, therefore, temporary injunction to the respondent tenant was granted which came to be confirmed. It is further the case of the petitioner that claim of the tenant is that in the said previous proceedings, the rent has been paid, but still however, the suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2008. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.153 of 2008 and the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court after hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the appeal vide judgment and order dated 12.10.2017 and these judgments and orders are made the subject matter of present revision application under Section 29(2) of the Act.

(3.) The Court originally had issued notice to the respondent on 05.04.2018, and after passage of time, these revision applications have come up for consideration before this Court on 08.07.2019.