Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/207/2006 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 207 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
KAMRUNISHA
NOORMIYA SHAIKH - Applicant(s)
Versus
MUSLIMUDDIN
SADRUDDIN DARGAH- WALA & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DR BHATT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4
MR DHAVAL D VYAS for
Opponent(s) : 1 - 5, 5.2.1, 5.2.2,5.2.3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 02/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
revision is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the
learned District Judge, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No.54/2000
dated 28.03.2005 whereby, the said appeal is dismissed and the
judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil
Judge (S.D.), Navsari in Regular Civil Suit No.170/1992 dated
16.03.2000 was confirmed.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent, original plaintiff, had let
the open land bearing City Survey No.80, Tika No.3380 of City
Navsari, ad-measuring 35’x12′, to the appellant, original defendant,
on a monthly rent of Rs.15/-. The respondent-plaintiff preferred suit
being Regular Civil Suit No.170/1992 before the trial Court inter
alia contending that the appellant-defendant has purchased a new
property in the name of his wife and that he is residing at the said
new residential accommodation along with his family and therefore,
the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for possession u/s.13 of the
Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act. In the said
suit, the appellant-defendant filed written statement at Exhibit-17.
After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court partly
decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by passing
decree u/s.13(1)(l) of the said Act only.
3. Against
the said judgment and decree, the appellant-defendant preferred
Regular Civil Appeal No.54/2000 before the lower appellate Court. The
lower appellate Court rejected the said appeal by impugned judgment
and order dated 28.03.2005. Hence, this revision.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is not disputed that the appellant-defendant has
acquired another property in the name of his wife bearing House
No.458 situated in Sai Krupa Society, Ward No.1, Navsari. It is the
say of the appellant that he was compelled to purchase the new
property since the suit property is not sufficient for his family,
which is large and that he has never stopped the usage of the suit
property, even after the purchase of the new accommodation.
5. It
appears from the evidence on record (Exhibit-109) that
appellant-defendant executed a rent-note in favour of the landlord on
01.06.1978 wherein, he has given assurance that the property let to
him shall be used for the residential purpose of his family. It is
not the case of the appellant-defendant that he has shifted to the
new premises and that the suit property is occupied by his
dependants. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the
appellant-defendant stopped the use of the suit property since
19.06.1989. The appellant-defendant has denied the said fact but, the
evidence on record shows that after the new residential property was
purchased by the appellant-defendant at Sai Krupa Society, the
appellant shifted to the said new property along with his entire
family and that no one is residing in the suit premises. The document
at Exhibit-112 is the copy of the Notice dated 27.08.1991 issued by
the plaintiff to the defendant at the new residential address of the
defendant, which was duly served upon the defendant and the
acknowledgment receipt thereof, duly signed by the defendant, has
been produced on record at Exhibit-113. The Voters’ List at
Exhibit-128 also shows the address of the defendant and his family
members at the new residential house. The Voters’ List for the year
1993 produced at Exhibit-126 does not reflect the names of the
defendant and his family members as the voters residing in the suit
property. Considering the documentary evidence on record, it is
established that neither the defendant nor any of his dependants
reside in the suit property. It is also established from the
cross-examination of the defendant that he had also purchased another
property at Alif Nagar, where his brothers are residing.
6. Before
parting, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court while dealing with revisions arising
u/s.29(2) of the Rent Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel
Valmik Himatlal & Ors. v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, 1999(1)
G.L.R. 15(SC) while approving and reiterating the principles laid
down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai v.
Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, 1987 A.I.R. S.C. 1782, held that
High Court cannot function as a Court of appeal, cannot re-appreciate
the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact
based on evidence recorded by the Courts below and cannot interfere
on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence and cannot
interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the Courts
below are on the basis of no evidence at all or are perverse. A
different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because
another view on the same set of facts may just be possible. Having
gone through the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the
Courts below wherein concurrent findings have been recorded, I do not
find any reasons to interfere with the same u/s.29(2) of the Rent
Act.
7. In
view of the above discussion, I find no merits in the present
revision. Consequently, the revision is rejected. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief stands vacated.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top