ANOOPSINH CHANDRASINH RATHOD Vs. PRAFULBHAI C PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29 of the Rent Act, challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the courts below.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that the applicant has filed a Rent Suit No.70 of 2007 on the premise that since about 2 decades, the applicant was staying with family members in the suit premises, since the landlord i.e. respondent is residing at London since 1990. Later on, the respondent - landlord was in need of a servant to look-­after the bungalow. As a result of this, the suit premises located behind bungalow No.65 of Kunj society, Alkapuri, Vadodara, was given and the applicant was residing at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-­. The premises consisted of one room, bathroom and lavatory. The applicant's wife was working in the house of the applicant, so the rent was deducted from her salary on two occasions. The applicant was paying municipal tax as well as other taxes of the suit premises and was also having ration card, PAN card and a tenant of the suit premises. The children of the applicant have also born in this very suit premises and since the cause of action arose in 2007, the suit came to be filed before the Small Causes Court at Vadodara. The respondent also simultaneously filed Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 2011 in the Court at Vadodara and obtained an injunction order and the complaint has also been filed which is pending before the learned JMFC. On 2.11.2017, the Small Causes Court was pleased to reject the suit filed by the present applicant without considering the evidence and legal proposition which led the applicant to prefer an appeal before the District Court at Vadodara which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.223 of 2017. Unfortunately, said appeal came up for consideration before the learned 4th Additional Court, Vadodara, who, by way of judgment and order dated 5.9.2018, was pleased to reject the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Small Causes Court and against this concurrent decisions of both the courts below, the applicant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application.

(3.) In the body of the Civil Revision Application, in Para.4 it has been mentioned that the same is under Section 115 of the CPC. But then, on the front page, after correcting the same, Civil Revision Application said to have been filed under Section 29 of the Rent Act. With this background, present Civil Revision Application came up for consideration before this Court today, in which Mr.Minjah Shaikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, has contended that both the courts below concurrently erred in exercising the jurisdiction. The reasons which are assigned by the courts below are not only unjust and improper, but causing serious miscarriage of justice. The grounds on which the judgment and decree has been passed are not sufficient enough to justify the conclusion and the courts below have not considered the fact that since several years, the applicant was residing in the premises and occasionally, rent was being deducted from the salary of wife.