Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/3/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 3 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
-Yes.
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ? -No.
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
-No.
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 ? -No.
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No.
=========================================================
PRANLAL
JIVANLAL SANGHVI - Applicant(s)
Versus
BHAICHAND
AMULAKH SHAH SINCE DECD. THROUGH HEIRS - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MJ PARIKH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JIGAR M PATEL for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition, the petitioner-original defendant has
challenged the judgment and order dated 5/10/2007 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2000 whereby the
learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the appellant and
quashed and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 31/3/2000
passed in Civil Suit No.148 of 1995 whereby the Trial Court after
considering the evidence on record has passed eviction decree on the
ground of non-user.
The
brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed Regular
Civil Suit No.148 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD),
Surendranagar for recovery of possession as well as arrears of rent
on the ground of non-user and subletting. The Trial Court dismissed
the said suit qua possession and directed the petitioner to pay
arrears of rent of Rs.1,320/-. Against the said decree the
respondent filed Regular Civil Appeal No.13 of 2000 in the District
Court, Surendranagar. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Court No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 5/10/2007 allowed
the appeal and granted the prayers as made in para 8 of the plaint.
It is against the said judgment and decree of the Appellate Court
the present Revision Application has been filed.
Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the premises were in use
and there was a compromise decree between the parties. He submitted
that the Lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that the rented
premises was required for bona fide and personal use of the
respondent.
Learned
Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Lower Appellate
Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and
no case is made out to cause interference.
As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is found that
there is a clear finding of arrears of rent and non-user of the
premises. The Lower Appellate Court has in detail discussed the
issues before coming to such conclusion which cannot be assailed in
any manner whatsoever.
I
am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Appellate
Court and condition of the rented premises was not proper and the
Court has believed the hardship of the landlord and in that view of
the matter, the decree passed by the Appellate Court is just and
proper.
In
the premises, present Civil Revision Application deserves to be
dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
However,
if undertaking is filed within two weeks, time to vacate the
premises is granted up to 15/11/2008.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
(ila)
Top