SARABHAI NAROTTAM Vs. DAVE PRAHLADRAI SHIVSHANKER
LAWS(GJH)-1970-2-14
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 04,1970

Sarabhai Narottam Appellant
VERSUS
Dave Prahladrai Shivshanker Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALSING V. HAMIDMIYAN [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant-tenant, under Section 28 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the decree for eviction passed against him and in favour of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1963 by learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, Mr. N.J. Mankad.
(2.)The material facts for this second appeal, briefly stated, are as under :
The respondent owns a house in Marine Society, Bhavnagar, which is rented to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. He had filed Civil Suit No. 636 of 1958 to evict the defendant on the ground of personal requirement, but that suit was settled and the defendant continued under a fresh rent note of 1st July, 1959 on the same terms. The respondent filed present Civil Suit No.316 of 1961 against the appellant-defendant to recover possession of the leased premises, arrears of rent and mesne profits, etc. Possession was sought for, initially on several grounds with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. We are concerned with a ground raised by him by a subsequent amendment made in the plaint. He pleaded therein that the suit house was constructed in the year, 1956 A.D. and, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, he was entitled to exemption and hence, the provisions of the Act did not apply to the suit house.

(3.)The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that though the premises had been erected anew after 1st January, 1951, the landlord was not entitled to the exemption clause as the suit premises were again let to the defendant after compromise in the earlier suit on execution of a rent note dated 1st July, 1959. According to the learned trial Judge, this being a second letting of the suit premises after 1st January, 1951, the plaintiff was not entitled to get exemption from the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession with costs in proportion to the relief claimed. Regarding the money-claim, a decree was passed against the defendant for an amount of Rs.395-50 Nps.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.