VIRENDRA DHIRUBHAI SHAH Vs. NATWAR PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the respondent at length.

(2.) By this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C'), applicants who are legal representatives of defendant No.2, hereinafter referred to as "Defendants No.2A to 2C" have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in Appeal No.414 of 2003. By that order, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff" and decreed the suit on the ground of arrears of rent (section 12) and unlawful subletting (section 13 (1) (e)) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Act'). The Appellate Court directed the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Block No.3, Parekh Building, Plot No. 228, Sion Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff. The relevant and material facts giving rise to filing of this Civil Revision Application, briefly stated are as under; The plaintiff instituted suit, inter alia, contending that he is owner of the suit premises situate in Parekh Building at Plot No. 228, Sion Road, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022. Defendant No.1 was residing in the suit premises as a tenant. She had shifted to Hyderabad and inducted Dhirubai Shah, defendant No.2 in the suit premises without plaintiff's consent. It amounts to unlawful subletting. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants have carried out unauthorized work in the suit premises ((13)(1) (b)). Defendant No.1 failed to pay rent from July, 1989 onwards and hence, demand notice was issued on 15th December, 1990 claiming arrears of rent @ Rs. 123/ per month from July, 1989 to December, 1990 (18 months) amounting to Rs. 2566.14 paise. The plaintiff also claimed difference of property tax, repair cess and water charges amounting to Rs. 3790.59. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants are in arrears of Rs. 6353.73 paise.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended. The plaintiff contended that he requires the suit premises for bona fide use and occupation having regard to number of his family members. If eviction decree is not passed, greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiff.