PALUBEN Vs. MOHANBHAI PITAMBARBHAI VEGDA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Mohanbhai Pitambarbhai Vegda
Click here to view full judgement.
Bela M. Trivedi,J. -
(1.) The petitioners - original opponents have preferred this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the judgement and order dated 18.2.2020 passed by the judge, Small Cause Court No.8, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Court below") in PSRP No.41 of 2013 filed by the respondent (original applicant) under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The Court below vide the impugned order has issued an order for possession of the application premises bearing Survey No.00067/20/A1/6/10, TP Scheme No.1, Final Plot No.67, situated at Latibazar Area, Ektanagar, Ahmedabad City under Section 43 of the said Act, against the present petitioners (original opponents).
(2.) The PSRP No.41 of 2013 was filed by the present respondent - original applicant, seeking possession warrant of the application premises from the present petitioners (original opponents), contending inter alia that the applicant was the owner of the application premises. The mother-in-law of the applicant and the opponent No.1 knew each other very well and considering the difficulty of the opponent No.1, the applicant had permitted the opponent No.1 to use the application premises for residence. The opponent No.1 had also assured the applicant that she would vacate the premises within six months once she got another house. The opponent No.1 had also agreed to pay the electricity charges and the municipal taxes of the premises in question during the said period. However, the opponent No.1 did not vacate the application premises after six months and kept on making excuses. The opponent No.1 also called the opponent Nos.2 and 3 who happened to be her children, to stay with her in the said premises. The applicant ultimately gave a notice dated 5.4.2013 to the opponents, seeking possession of the application premises and terminating the permission to use the premises for residence, however, the opponents did not hand over the possession of the said premises and gave evasive reply. The applicant, therefor, had filed the Application for the reliefs as prayed for in the said application filed under Section 41 of the said Act.
(3.) The opponents having been served with the summons, had appeared before the Court below and filed their reply vide Exh.15, denying the allegations and averments made in the application. It was contended that the applicant had agreed to sell the application premises to the opponent No.1 by accepting the consideration in the year 2003 and to hand over the possession of the same to the opponent No.1 and since then the opponent No.1 had become the owner and occupant of the said premises. It was also contended that the opponent No.1 had thereafter insisted the applicant to execute the legal documents in favour of the opponent No.1, but the applicant did not execute the same and had filed the false application against the opponents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.