PREMCHAND MAHASUKHBHAI Vs. CHAMANLAL RANCHHODDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three companion applications in revision arise out of three suits filed in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Ahmedabad by the opponent against his three tenants in respect of properties situated within the limits of the city of Ahmedabad. The suits were filed by the plaintiff for recovering possession and arrears of rent in respect of the three suit properties. The leases in suits Nos. 1106 and 1107 of 1943 out of which Civil Revision Applications Nos. 192 and 320 of 1944 arise are dated April 8, 1943, while the lease in suit No. 1108 out of which Civil Revision Application No. 269 of 1944 arises is dated April 6, 1943.

(2.) In all the three suits it was contended by the plaintiff that the period of lease had expired on September 11, 1943, on which date the possession of the properties in suits was to be handed over by the respective defendants to the plaintiff. The contentions of the defendants in the three suits were common in several particulars, although in suits Nos. 1107 of 1943 and 1108 of 1943 there were certain additional contentions taken by the respective defendants. The principal ground on which the suits were resisted1 was that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suits for possession and rent, that the notice to quit was not valid and that the suits were barred by reason of Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act. The contention raised under Section 11 was that the tenants were not liable to be evicted as the plaintiff did not require the suit properties bona fide for his own occupation. Without prejudice to this contention, it was further submitted by the three defendants that the plaintiff had orally agreed to lease the properties for a period of five years more after September 11, 1943. In suit No. 1107 of 1943 there was the additional contention that the Panch Kuva Cloth Market Association had passed a resolution to the effect that no owner of a building should get the same vacated by his tenant for a period of five years; and it was alleged that by reason of this resolution the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession. In suit No. 1108 of 1943 the additional contention was that the defendants were a firm, and that the suit was not maintainable without joining the partners of the firm, as parties to the suit.

(3.) After these contentions were taken a preliminary issue was raised as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit, and the Third Joint Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, before whom the suits were pending, came to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction to hear the suit and he, therefore, ordered that the suits be kept for hearing on other issues. It is against that order that the three defendants have come in revision.