Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/13620/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 136 of 2008
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 ?
=========================================================
SURIYAKANT
BHIKHALAL HAKANI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
PRAVEEN
CHANDRA VIRJLAL KHANDHERIYA - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PC KAVINA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR SURESH M SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 21/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2005
passed by the learned Jt. District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 4, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1992
whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree
dated 11.06.1990 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes
Court, Rajkot in Rent Suit No.75 of 1984 was confirmed.
2.0 The
facts in brief are that the respondent no. 1 [deceased], original
plaintiff, filed a suit being Rent Suit No.75 of 1984 against the
petitioners, original defendants, for the recovery of an amount of
Rs.6550/- towards the arrears of rent and to get vacant and peaceful
possession of the property bearing Bungalow No. 64 situated in
Malaviyanagar area of Rajkot City. The said suit was decreed in
favour of the respondent, original plaintiff.
2.1 Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal
before the District Court. However, the appeal preferred by the
petitioners came to be rejected by the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this revision.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. After appreciating the
entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the
Court below has come to the conclusion that the respondent, original
plaintiff, was in genuine need of the suit premises. In my opinion,
the Court below has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the
original plaintiff as she was in bona fide need of the suit premise
and she would suffer greater hardship, if the same was not granted to
her.
4. Apart
from that it also appears from the record that the petitioner,
original defendants, had not made any attempts, much less any serious
attempts to say so, to search for any alternative premise for their
accommodation.
5. Thus,
looking to the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind the fact
that the original plaintiff was not keeping good-health, at the
relevant point of time, I am of the view that the Court below was
completely justified in decreeing the suit in her favour. I am in
complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the
Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this
revision.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. Time to vacate the
suit premise is granted up to 31.08.2009 on condition
that the petitioners will file an Undertaking before this Court,
within a period of three weeks from today, to the effect that they
will vacate the suit premise before 31.08.2009 and that they will
continue to pay mesne profits regularly till the said date. No
order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top