RAMANLAL AMARSHI SHAH Vs. MAHENDRAPRASAD AMBAPRASAD BAROT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in the Small Causes Court being Rent Suit No. 1175 of 1975 for possession of the property bearing C. No. 3562 situated in Sultanpura, Kuwa Falia, Baroda, on a number of grounds. It, however, appears that at the time of hearing of the suit, other issues were not pressed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff except the issue regarding acquisition of vacant possession by the tenant. It was the case of the plaintiff that since the defendant had constructed a bungalow in a society in the name of his wife, he was liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement at Exh. 17. Though a number of contentions were taken in the written statement, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with those objections, in view of the fact that the parties had come to trial only on one issue. Regarding that issue, it was contended that the defendant had not constructed any house in Maneklal Park, Buddhev Colony, Baroda, as alleged by the plaintiff and it was not a suitable residence for him. It was, therefore, submitted that the case did not fall within the mischief of Section 13(1)(1) of the Act and the defendant was not liable to be evicted.

(3.) After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court held that it was established from the evidence on record that Bungalow No. 16 was constructed by the wife but in view of the fact that Section 13(1)(1) of the Act provides that "tenant" should have acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence and in the instant case, the tenant, i.e. Ramanlal Amarsinh Shah (husband of Taraben) had not acquired suitable residence, Section 13(1)(1) was not attracted and the defendant-tenant was not liable to be evicted. The Trial Court also held that Taraben was not made party to the proceedings and in her absence the title to the suit property should not be decided by the Rent Court. It was also held by the trial court that from the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that Taraben was having her own property which was reflected from revenue records, pahani patrak and other entries and if Taraben, from her own fund, had purchased the property, in her absence title to the suit property could not be decided against her and the defendant cannot be ordered to be evicted. In view of the said finding, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff.