HARSUKHLAL ATISUKHLAL Vs. ATILAXMIBEN HIRALAL MUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opponents herein are the original plaintiffs who instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 309 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D.) Bharuch for the possession of the demise premises against the Petitioner original defendant-tanant on the ground that (1) defandant-tanant has not used the demise Premisees without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were leased for a continuous period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit; (2) that the suit premises are required for personal and bonafide occupation by the landlord; and (3) that defendant-tenant is not using the premises as a man of prudence and thereby has committed breach of the conditions of tenancy.

(2.) The defendant-tenant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement Exh. 17 inter alia contending that the contractual rent is excessive and standard rent should be fixed. He denied all allegations raised in the complaint. He denied that suit premises are not used as alleged. It was also contended that greater hardship will be caused to him in the event of passing of ejectment decree on the ground of Sec. 13(1)(g).

(3.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances issues came to be settled Exh. 28 by the Trial Court. After considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record the Trial Court passed the decree for ejectment on 31.3 on the ground that the defendant-tenant has not used demises premises without reasonable excuse for the purpose for which it was leased for a continuous period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the suit. Other two grounds were not accepted by the Trial Court. Thus decree came to be passed against the defendnat-tenant on the ground of Sec. 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act which was questioned before the appellate Court by filing a Regular Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1980. Appeal came to be dismissed by the joint District Judge Bharuch on 31st December 1981 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court Hence this revision under Sec. 29 sub-section (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner defendant-tenant is served with a notice though not required under the law upon the elevation of his Advocate to Bench of this Court. None appeared when the matter was called out. Therefore the matter is being disposed of on its merits by examining the facts and circumstances emerging from the record.