Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/168/2008 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 168 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge?
=========================================
VASANTRAI
SHANTILAL CHATTBAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
DAULATBEN
RAMJANALIBHAI BUDHVANI & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
VIJAY H NANGESH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR
RR TRIVEDI for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for
Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2,
DELETED for
Opponent(s) : 2.2.1, 2.2.2,2.2.3
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 06/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Present
Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has
been preferred by the applicant herein original defendant to
quash and set aside judgment and decree dated 12.02.2001 passed by
the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jetpur in Regular Civil Suit No.25 of
1996 by which learned Trial Court has passed decree of possession in
favour of landlord which came to be confirmed by the learned
Appellate Court by impugned order 24.03.2008 in Regular Civil appeal
No.16 of 2001.
2. Respondent
herein original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.25 of
1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jetpur for decree of
possession on the ground of arrears of rent by the tenant for more
than 6(six) months and also for recovery of arrears of rent of
Rs.8820.60 due and payable from 06.12.1992. It was the case on behalf
of the plaintiff that despite service of statutory notice and notice
terminating tenancy, tenant did not pay arrears of rent. It was the
case on behalf of the tenant that there was no arrears of rent and
landlord did not issue any receipt though rent was paid. That the
learned Trial Court after framing necessary issues at Exh.43 and
after appreciation of evidence on record by judgment and decree dated
12.02.2001 passed eviction decree directing applicant to hand over
peaceful and vacant possession of suit premises and also directed
applicant tenant to pay Rs.8820.60 being arrears of rent. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated
12.02.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit
No.25 of 1996, applicant original defendant no.1 preferred
Regular Civil Appeal No.16 of 2001 before the District Court, Rajkot
and learned Appellate Court I.e. Presiding Officer and 6th
Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp, Jetpur by impugned order dated
24.03.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree
passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with judgment and order passed by both the Courts below in passing
eviction decree against the applicant tenant on the ground of
arrears of rent for more than 6(six) months, applicant original
defendant has preferred present Revision Application under section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Having
heard Mr.Nangesh, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.Dave,
learned Advocate appearing for Mr.Trivedi, learned Advocate appearing
for the respondent herein original plaintiff and considering
impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below it
cannot be said both the Courts below have committed any illegality in
passing eviction decree against the applicant tenant on the
ground of arrears of rent for more than 6(six) months. As such there
are concurrent findings given by both the Courts below holding that
applicant has failed to prove that he has paid rent due and payable
to the landlord. Both the Courts below have concurrently found
against applicant tenant in not paying arrears of rent for more
than 6(six) months and has given finding that despite statutory
notice applicant tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent. Finding
of facts given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of
evidence which are not required to be re-appreciated and/or
interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Learned Advocate for the
applicant -tenant has failed to point out any infirmity in the
judgment and order passed by both the Courts below which calls for
interference of this Court in exercise of powers under section 29(2)
of the Bombay Rent Act.
4. In
view of above, there is no substance in the present Revision
Application which deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is
dismissed. Notice discharged.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top