GANGDAS MOUJIBHAI PATEL Vs. HARSHVARDHAN BALKRUSHNA BHADUPOTCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE present civil revision application is directed against the order dated 8-7-2002 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia in Regular Civil Suit No. 170/2002, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint came to be rejected.

(3.) A few facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the present civil revision application are as under: the non-applicants/original plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 170/2000 against the applicant/original defendant for the possession, damages and mesne profits. It is averred by the plaintiffs that they are the owners of land bearing Nazul Plot No. 23/1, Sheet No. 7, situated at Seth Pratap Ward, Gondia and the defendant is in occupation of a total area admeasuring 6375 sq. ft. out of the said land (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") as their tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 400/ -. The defendant runs a saw mill named and styled as "shankar Vijay Saw Mill" on the said land. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the tenancy of the defendant commences from the 16th day of every English calendar month and ends on the 15th day of succeeding month. It is also averred by the plaintiffs that they had filed an application for fixation of fair rent of the suit premises before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller was pleased to fix the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 12750/- per month. This order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the defendant by preferring an appeal before the Additional Collector, Gondia and the said matter is still subjudice. The plaintiffs now do not want to continue the tenancy of the defendant. They have, therefore, terminated the tenancy of the defendant by the end of 15-6-2000 by issuing a notice to quit dated 23-5-2000 which was served upon the defendant on 24-5-2000. By the said notice, the defendant was called upon to vacate the suit premises by 15-6-2000 and since he failed to comply with the same, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for eviction, recovery of damages and mesne profits against the defendant.