JITENDRA OCHHAVLAL SONI Vs. RAJESH CHHAGANLAL GONDALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present group of applications under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act"), are arising out of the same controversy and on the basis of the same material, all these four revision applications have been submitted on account of common judgment and order. As per the request of the learned advocates, these revision applications are taken up for hearing conjointly by treating Civil Revision Application No. 353 of 2019 as a lead matter.

(2.) The brief controversy which has arisen in the present proceedings is that there is one Tenement No. 26 situated in Amumiya Co-operative Housing Society Limited over the land being Final Plot No. 5 of T.P. Scheme No. 25 of Moje Khokhra -Mahemdavad, Taluka CIty, District, Sub-District, Ahmedabad, is consisting of three rooms : Otla, Osari, Marginal land, open land, Water Tank, Chokdi , W.C., Bathroom, stair case and terrace. This property was held and possessed by Shantaben Ambalal Patel as a member of Amumiya Co-operative Housing Society and the same was being administered by rent collector, Devendrabhai Jani, the founder of the Society since the day of allotment of tenement. As per the say of the applicants who are the original defendants in H.R.P. Suit No. 1999 of 20015, the said three rooms of Tenement No. 26 were let out to three different tenants by Devendrabhai Jani with a right to use bathroom, toilet, marginal Land, open land, water tank, chokdi, staircase and terrace by all the three tenants jointly as a tenant. The opponent has admitted to have purchased the property of Tenement No. 26 from Devendrabhai Jani and started quarreling with tenants and threatened to damage common facilities of water tank, chokdi, staircase etc., and wanted to create hindrance in use of terrace and threaten to take back the possession from the tenants by throwing the goods and articles lying in the Osri. The deceased mother of the applicants filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005 against Shantaben Ambalal Patel - original allottee of the tenement, through her administrator Devendrabhai Jani restraining original opponent no. 2 not to take possession of the suit room and not to create any hindrance in using common facilities. Opponents nos. 1 and 2 had not given any intimation nor had given any Attornment notice regarding the sale of Tenement No. 26 by Shantaben's rent collector - Devendrabhai Jani to the present opponent i.e. Rajesh Chhaganlal Gondalia. On account of this, the deceased mother of the applicants filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005 and sought an interim relief in terms of para 8(A) which was granted in favour of the applicants at Exhibit-6. The said injunction application which was moved was confirmed, except the portion of terrace. As a result of this, Appeal from Order No. 77 of 2005 was filed before the appellate court of Small Causes Court, wherein the Hon'ble Bench, according to the applicants was pleased to order to maintain status quo and resultantly, directed to expedite the suit proceedings i.e. H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005. It is further the case of the applicants that the opponent had also filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1409 of 2005 i.e. by subsequent purchaser - Rajesh Chhaganlal Gondalia against the deceased mother - Lilaben Soni of applicants to obtain possession of the tenanted premises by resorting to Section 13(1) (l) of the Bombay Rent Act, since suitable residential accommodation is very much available to the tenants. Pursuant to the application having been given by the learned advocate for the opponent, this suit was ordered to be heard along with H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005 and by consolidating the same, common evidence was led before the court, wherein on 04.12.2009, the judgment came to be delivered by the learned Small Causes Court, wherein H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005 came to be partly allowed since the same was filed by the deceased mother of the applicants. The applicants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order in respect of no relief being granted in part, an appeal came to be filed being Appeal No. 103 of 2009. It was then, the learned trial court while disposing of H.R.P. Suit No. 1409 of 2005 passed an order to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the opponent i.e Rajesh Chhaganlal Gondalia. As a result of this, appeal came to be filed being Appeal No. 105 of 2009. So, one Appeal No. 103 of 2009 is filed against an order passed in H.R.P. Suit No. 1181 of 2005 whereas Appeal No. 105 of 2009 came to be filed against an order passed in H.R.P. Suit No. 1409 of 2005 whereby the applicants have been ordered to hand over peaceful and vacant possession.

(3.) XXX XXX XXX