- (1.)THIS revision application has been preferred challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No.32/1998 dated 31.08.2009 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Judge, Surat in Small Cause Suit No.557/1984 dated 05.03.1998 has been confirmed.
(2.)THE facts in brief are that the property bearing 'nondh' nos.2588 to 2618 paiki & 'nondh' no.2595 situated at Ward no.6, Swaminarayan Wadi, Rnganathpura, Surat is the ownership of the respondent, org. plaintiff. THE said property was leased to Ranchhoddas Kuberdas, who had expired some where in the year 1974, for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.341/-. THE appellants herein, org. defendants, are the legal heirs of deceased Rachhoddas Kuberdas.
The respondent, org. plaintiff, preferred Small Cause Suit No.557/1984 before the Small Causes Court, Surat for recovery of possession of the said premises on the ground of arrears of rent, acquisition of suitable accommodation by the defendants and sub-letting the suit premises. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Against the said decree, the appellants, org. defendants, preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.32/1998 before the District Court, Surat. The lower appellate Court dismissed the said appeal vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2009. Hence, this revision application.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the record that the defendants had not paid rent to the plaintiff and therefore, demand notice (Exh.83) was served upon the defendants. However, the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiffs. It also appears that the defendants had not paid rent for a period of more than three years and that rent was lastly deposited only on 21.04.2006. Thus, the defendants were found to be in breach of the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.

(3.)SUFFICIENT opportunity was granted to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiffs. However, the defendants neither cross-examined the plaintiffs nor made any attempt to re-open their right of cross-examination for reasons best known to them. Thus, it was established on record that the defendants had filed to pay rent to the plaintiff.
Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that neither of the Courts below have committed any error warranting interference of this Court in this revision application. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to entertain this revision application.