RANA GOKALDAS ZINABHAI Vs. DADHRA THAKORLAL CHUNILAL DECD
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
RANA GOKALDAS ZINABHAI
DADHRA THAKORLAL CHUNILAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This Revision Application arises out of the eviction suit filed by the opponent Nos. 1 to 6 against the opponent No. 7 as the head tenant and the petitioner as the assignee in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Cambay where the said suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961. The premises in question consist of a shop at Cambay. The facts of the case show that on 11th December 1957 opponent No. 1 executed a rent note with respect to the suit premises as found at Ex. 34. One of the terms of the rent note was that the tenant should vacate the suit premises without any dispute and without insisting upon a notice whenever the landlord desired to take possession.
(2.)It is found that the head tenant fell into arrears of rent with the result that on 24-9-1960 the opponent No. 1 Thakorlal Chunilal who has since died served him with a notice of eviction on two grounds namely:
(1) Non-payment of arrears of rent and (2) bona fide personal requirement. By this notice he in effect claimed possession of the suit premises latest by 24th October 1960 Reply to this notice was given by the head tenant on 1-10-60 as found at Ex. 36 wherein he has raised the question as regards the standard rent and has demanded certain particulars about rent. The rejoinder to this reply is given by opponents Nos. 1 to 6 as found at Ex. 37 which is dated 1-11-1960. Further reply to this rejoinder was given by the head tenant on 8-11-60 as found at Ex. 38. On 17-11-60 the opponent Nos. 1 to 6 gave a notice to the petitioner who is the sub-tenant informing him that the head tenant was served with a notice dated 24-9-60 and after receipt of this he had vacated the suit premises which was occupied by the sub-tenant who was conducting his business of confectionery in the suit premises. Opponent Nos. 1 to 6 demanded from the petitioner sub-tenant the details as regards the condition under which he had acquired the possession of the suit premises from the head tenant. Finally opponents Nos. 1 to 6 gave another notice as found at Ex. 41. On 3-12-60 this notice was given to the head tenant as well as to the sub-tenant (petitioner). The notice demanded the vacant possession of the premises latest by about 24th January 1961 which is the date arrived at after calculating the directions given in the notice as to the date on which the premise should be vacated. This last notice of eviction is found at Ex. 41. Thus by virtue of this notice the tenant as well as sub-tenant were required to vacate the premises latest by 24-1-61.
(3.)It is found that in the meanwhile on 1st October 1960 i.e. after the receipt of the first notice dated 24-9-60 found at Ex. 35. the head tenant who is the opponent No. 7 assigned his tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner who is referred in this judgment as sub-tenant. This document of assignment is found at Ex. 55 in the record of the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.