SWASTIK BEARING CO Vs. DASHRATHLAL CHHOTALAL PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is against the judgment ant order passed by the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad under Sec. 41 of the-Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882 directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the premises which consists of industrial shed situated in Tavdipura area of Ahmedabad. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners have been inducted in the premises by virtue of agreement Exh. 40 dated 24/06/1971 The petitioners have been called upon to vacate the premises by notice dated 2/08/1977 (Exh. 30). The petitioners did not vacate the premises but gave reply contesting the claim made by the respondentapplicants. Thereafter another notice dated 28/09/1981 (Exh. 43 was served upon the petitioners. This was also replied to by the petitioners-tenants wherein various contentions were raised. Ultimately the respondents-applicants filed P. S. R. P. application under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882 (in short the Act) praying for vacant possession of the premises The petitioners appeared in the application and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points.

(2.) The trial Court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that Exh. 40 the agreement entered into by and between the parties was a document of leave and licence and not a document of lease as contended by the petitioners. on overall appreciation of evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that the license was revoked and the petitioners had no right to continue in the possession of the premises. Hence the order as stated hereinabove. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order Sling this Revision Application.

(3.) The Revision Application is required to be disposed of on the short ground that the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act; XV of 1882 inter alia provides for recovery of possession of an immoveable property situated within the local limits of Small Causes Courts jurisdiction of which the annual value at a rack-rent does not exceed two thousand rupees.It is an admitted position that as far as Gujarat is concerned the words two thousand rupees have been substituted by five thousand rupees. In this case as per the Agreement Exh. 40 which is the basis of the application for recovery of possession of property in question is concerned the petitioners are required to pay Rs. 411.00 per month as mesne profits or occupation charges or rent by whatever terms the said amount may be labelled. This very agreement also provides that the petitioners were liable to pay property tax ar d other taxes payable to the Municipal Corporation and to the State Government. The amount of property tax and education case forms part of the rent. This is 60 held by this Court in the case of Panchal Mohanlal Ishwardas v. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. reported in (1962) 3 GLR 574 and in the case of Khemchand v. Mohmadbhai reported in (1965) 6 GLR 829. If this amount of property tax and other taxes is included in the aforesaid amount of Rs. 411.00 payable every month the total amount payable by the petitioners to the landlord every year would certainly exceed Rs. 5000.00. (The amount of net rent payable would be Rs. 411.00 multiplied by 12 i. e. Rs. 4932.00. Add to this property tax which at the current rate would be 54% of the rateable value). In the instant CaB0 the rateable value would be 9/10th of Rs. 4932.00. That means Rs. 4439.00 would be the rateable value. Property tax would be as follows: