V.R.SHAH - (1.) This second appeal arises out of Civil Suit No. 341 of 1960 wherein the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Veraval-Malia has passed a passed a decree for possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the District Court at Junagadh being Appeal No. 20 of 1962 but the appeal has been dismissed. The appellants-original defendants have therefore brought this second appeal to this Court.
(2.) The facts necessary to understand the point of law involved in this appeal are as follows : The suit premises consist of a house. This house belonged to one Tribhovandas Haridas and it has been purchased by the plaintiff on 25 The original tenant in the premises was Narandas Lavji who took it on lease from Haridas sometime round about 1941. Narandas Lavji died and present appellant No. 2 is his widow and the appellant No. 1 Is has son. The plaintiff brought this suit against the appellants- defendants for possession of the suit premises on two grounds-firstly on the ground that he required the suit house reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation and secondly on the ground that the appellants had sublet a portion of the premises contrary to the provisions of sec. 15 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Act) and therefore the plaintiff had become entitled to recover possession from the appellants under sec. 11(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act. The trial Court negatived the case of the plaintiff in so far as the ground of personal occupation by the plaintiff was concerned but it held that the defendants had sub-let the premises prior to the institution of the suit and therefore passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff The defendants appealed to the District Court Junagadh being Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1962. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal holding that after the date on which the Saurashtra Rent Act 1951 came into force there was a sub-tenancy created by the defendants and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession from the defendants. It is against this decree that this Second Appeal has been filed in this Court.
(3.) The only point that arises for our decision in this appeal is whether on the facts proved in the Courts below the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on the ground of sub-letting under sec. 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Act 1951;