JAYANTILAL KASTURCHAND VORA Vs. VINOD CHHOTALAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Application has been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.1995 passed by the Learned Joint District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.55/1992 on the grounds set out in the present Revision Application.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are that the applicant is the purchaser of the suit premises in the auction by sale deed executed in favour of the applicant dated 14.10.1983. THE suit premises was original belonging to one Zalavad Satsang Samaj, who had let out part of the premises on the ground floor to one Rasiklal Ratilal on monthly rent of Rs.11.00 per month for the purpose of doing business. THErefore, the suit shop was given to the father of the respondent nos.2 and 3 for doing business. THEreafter, the respondent no.1 had joined the respondent no.3 and he continued. However, Regular Civil Suit No.6/1984 was filed before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (JD), Surendranagar for possession on the ground of subletting and non-user by the respondent nos.2 and 3. THE Suit was decreed. THErefore, Appeal came to be filed challenging the said Judgment and Order before the District Judge by way of filing Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 1992 by the respondent no.1 herein. On appreciation of evidence and after considering the submissions, the Learned Joint District Judge, Surendranagar set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (JD), Surendranagar in Civil Suit No.6/1984, which gave rise to filing of the present Civil Revision Application.

(3.) SIMILARLY, she has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (1) G.L.H. 273 in case of Kanaiyalal L. Ranpara and Anr. V/s Dahyalal P. Tank. She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1975) 2 SCC 668 in case of Gajanan Dattatraya V/s Sherbanu Hosang Patel and Ors. and referring to Para No.17, it was submitted that the tenant is not entitled to any protection of the Act if he falls within the mischief of the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) namely he has sublet. She, therefore, submitted that as it is evident that it is a case of subletting, the lower Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the findings of the lower Court. Therefore, the present application may be allowed.