Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/6720/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 67 of 2008
=========================================================
PANKAJ
BABULAL JAMARWALA - Applicant(s)
Versus
VATVA
GROUP SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MD PANDYA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SIRAJ R GORI for Opponent(s) : 1, 3,
NOTICE
SERVED for Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 25/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that
issues require consideration. Hence Rule.
Question
of interim relief however, is required to be tackled.
It
appears that the petitioner is tenant of go-down of ownership of the
respondents. The area of such constructed premises is approximately
8000 sq. ft. Go-downs are situated in the industrial area at the
outskirts of Ahmedabad city. Two Courts below have held that proper
rent for the premises in question should be Rs. 7100/- per month.
On
behalf of the respondents, the Counsel submitted that since year
1998 till date, no rent has been paid by the petitioner.
Learned
advocate Shri Pandya for the petitioner submitted that the standard
rent fixed by the Courts below is excessive.
On
the other hand, learned advocate Shri Gori for the respondents
submitted that rent fixed was agreed rent and that even otherwise,
it was lower than comparable rent paid by the other tenant in the
neighborhood and there was other evidence also on record suggesting
that rent fixed by the Courts below was in no way excessive. He
submitted that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should
not interfere with such factual findings.
Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order shall stand
stayed on following conditions :
1) That
the petitioner herein shall pay to the respondents 50% of the
arrears in six monthly installment starting from 1.10.2008 and
further that undertaking to this effect shall be filed latest by
30.9.2008.
2) The
petitioner shall continue to pay the rent at the rate fixed by the
Courts below prospectively from 1.10.2008 onwards.
3) It
would however, be open for the petitioner to vacate the premises in
order to stop paying current rent.
4)
In case of default on part of the petitioner either to file
undertaking as directed by this Court or to deposit part of the rent
within the time permitted, interim injunction shall automatically
stand vacated.
5) Liberty
to apply to either side in case of difficulty.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top