- (1.)THE present Civil Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant herein original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 22/10/2001 passed by learned Assistant Judge, Panchmahals, Godhra in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2000, by which, learned Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein original defendant and has quashed and set aside the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court decreeing the suit and passing eviction decree against the respondent herein original defendant.
(2.)THAT the applicant herein original plaintiff - landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No.432 of 1987 against the respondent herein original defendant tenant in the court of learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Halol for recovery of possession/ eviction decree on number of grounds inclusive of on the ground that original defendant is in arrears of rent for more than six months; that the plaintiff required suit property for his personal and bonafide requirement; that the defendant -tenant had put up permanent construction without prior permission of the landlord and also on the ground of non -user of the suit premises by the original defendant for more than six months preceding the date of filing of the suit.
(3.)THAT the suit was resisted by the original defendant by filing written statement denying all the averments made in the suit and denying non -payment of arrears of rent for more than six months and not using the suit property for more than six months and suit property is required bonafidely by the landlord, etc. The suit was also resisted by submitting that the suit property belongs to Trikamlal Mandir Trust and as the original plaintiff i.e. Ramanlal Chunilal Pathak was Administrator of the said Trust, the suit filed by the original plaintiff at his instance, is not maintainable. The suit was also resisted on the ground that the suit has been filed without the prior permission of Charity Commissioner and therefore the same is not maintainable.
Learned Trial Court framed the issues at Exh -16. Both the sides led evidence and on appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court held all the issues in favour of the original plaintiff and against original defendant and consequently learned Trial Court passed the eviction decree against the original defendant vide judgement and decree dated 13/01/2000.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree dated 13/01/2000 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Halol in Regular Civil Suit No.432 of 1987 in passing eviction decree against the respondent herein original defendant, the respondent herein original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal before learned District Court, Panchmahal at Godhara and learned Appellate Court by impugned judgement and order dated 22/10/2001 has allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court mainly and solely on the ground that as one Jaivadan Pathak is owner of the suit property as reflected in the property card produced at Exh.91 and the suit has been filed by Ramanlal Pathak, who is not the owner of the suit property and, therefore, notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was illegal as well as on the ground that the suit filed by Ramanlal was not maintainable at his instance by observing that the suit has been filed by a person, who is not the owner of the suit property. It appears that some observations are made by learned Trial Court on the ground of arrears of rent by holding that tenancy is yearly tenancy and not monthly tenancy.