SONAL UDIT PATEL Vs. SARANGPUR COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Ishan Mihir Patel, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The present Civil Revision Application under the provisions of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rent Act") has been filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The background of the facts, which have been generated in the present revision application are that the father of the applicant No.2 namely, Chandrakant Shah, who was original defendant of the premises in question, being Tenement No.7261-0686-00-00-E, situated in the basement of a building constructed in T.P. Scheme No.3, F.P.No.826-1, having municipal census Nos.47/1 to 47/3 at Moje Kocharab, on a monthly rent of Rs.150.00; exclusive of Municipal Tax, Education cess, etc. The original plaintiff of the suit, being the respondent herein on 13.07.2002, had issued a notice to the father of the deceased applicant No.1 alleging that the tenant is very irregular in making payment of rent and municipal tax and has given rent upto 01.01.1990 only, and therefore, a demand of rent due of Rs.22,500.00 upto 30.06.2002 was made. The said notice appears to have been replied by the original tenant on 12.08.2002, which is produced at Exh.56 inter alia denying assertions of the notice, which ultimately, laid the plaintiff - Bank to institute a suit for recovery of possession, being Suit No. H.R.P.-639 of 2002 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and the ground for which, the suit was based are the arrears of rent, bona fide requirement and also on the ground wherein it was alleged that the original defendant - tenant had undertaken illegal construction in the suit premises and behavior towards the plaintiff is in the nature of annoyance and nuisance and also a substantial ground of subletting is pleaded before the Court. The suit was contested by submitting written statement at Exh.24 and ultimately, after examining, both courts below have found that the case is not in favour of the present applicants and learned trial Judge was pleased to decree the suit in favour of original plaintiff on 01.04.2008, by passing the following order: