MANSURI ISMAIL GULAMNABI Vs. VITHALBHAI LALJIBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1973-9-23
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 27,1973

MANSURI ISMAIL GULAMNABI Appellant
VERSUS
VITHALBHAI LALJIBHAI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ROLLS V. MILLER [REFERRED]
MAHALINGA BANDAPPA LAKHANNAVAR V. VENKATESH WAMAN KARNATAK [REFERRED]
LAKSHMINARAYAN RAM GOPAL AND SON LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED]
SHAH BHOJRAJ KUVERJI OIL MILLS AND GINNING FACTORY VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA YOGRAJ SINHA [REFERRED]
KHIMCHAND HARGOVANDAS SHAH VS. GANCHI VALIBHAI GABABHAI [REFERRED]
P K KESAVAN NAIR VS. C K BABU NAIDU [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

T.U.MEHTA - (1.)This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants against the respondents for obtaining the possession of the suit premises which are occupied by the respondents as tenants. The premises in question consist of a shop admeasuring 3 to 4 ft. in width and 7 to 8 ft. in length situated at Dholka. The suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge J.D. at Dholka where it was registered as Civil Suit No. 56/63. The appellants claimed the eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide personal occupation for the purpose of conducting his business of selling aerated water in the suit premises. One contention which was raised by the plaintiff was that the premises were not covered by the provisions of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act).
(2.)The suit premises were admittedly first let to the respondents father before the year 1950. The respondents and respondents father are conducting a barber shop in the suit premises. The respondents have resisted the suit on the ground that they are the tenants protected under the Rent Act and the premises in question are not bona fide and reasonably required by the plaintiffs-appellants for their personal use and occupation. They also contended that they were not in arrears of rent.
(3.)The trial court held that the premises were governed by the provisions of the Rent Act that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were requiring the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for their personal use and that the respondents-tenants were not in arrears of rent. Against this decision of the trial court the plaintiffs preferred Appeal No. 95/64 which was heard and disposed of by the court of Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The learned Judge of the lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and hence. this second appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.