THAKKER - (1.). This revision application is filed against the decree passed by the District Court, Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1979 by which that Court allowed an appeal filed by the appellant and reversed the decree for possession passed by the trial Court.
(2.). To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The petitioner was the original plaintiff while one Gulabchand Ramjibhai Shah (since deceased) was the original defendant. After the death of said Gulabchand, his heirs were brought on record in the present proceedings. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 307 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhavnagar for possession of the suit premises, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant had not used the premises for the purpose for which it was let for a period of more than six months immediately preceding the date of the suit without any reasonable cause that the defendant was in arrears of rent and was not ready and willing to pay rent and inspite of the notice of demand, he failed to pay rent. It was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint that he was the owner of the house situated at Taleti of Takhteshwar at Bhavnagar in Plot No. B/2 and the defendant was a tenant on the ground floor of the portion of Block No. C for a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00 plus water and light charges and other taxes. The defendant was not paying rent regularly and was in arrears from Ju 15/06/1969 and event after service of demand notice, he did not pay rent to the landlord. The defendant also kept premises locked as he had permanently shifted to Bombay. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a decree for possession.
(3.). The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, Ex. 13 contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable at law; the averments made in the plaint were not correct and, therefore, not admitted by him. It was not true that the defendant had kept the premises closed nor he was permanently staying at Bombay. He was occupying the suit premises at Bhavnagar. It was also contended that the defendant was always ready and willing to pay rent but the plaintiff was not accepting it. The amount was, therefore, sent by money order which was also refused by the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to evict the defendant and/or to get rent increased and, therefore, suit was filed. The suit notice was also not legal and valid. For all those reasons, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for possession.