SHAH BABULAL SOMALAL Vs. SHAH KANTILAL HARGOVANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendant had been in arrears of rent. The suit premises consists of a shop situate at village Alina in Kaira District. It appears that on 7th May 1964 plaintiffs father purchased from the defendant the entire building of which the suit premises formed a part. The transaction was evidenced by the sale deed Ex. 18. It appears that it was a sale with a condition to repurchase. On the same day the defendant executed rent-note in favour of the plaintiffs father in respect of the suit premises which constitute only a part of the property which plaintiffs father purchased. The rent which was fixed under the rent-note Ex. 19 was Rs. 135.00 per year. It appears that the defendant paid rent for some time and thereafter became irregular in payment. Therefore the plaintiff served upon the defendant notice determining his tenancy in respect of the suit premises. The defendant replied to that notice and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the only relationship which existed between them was that of the mortgagor and the mortgagee. The learned trial Judge upheld the plea raised by the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs claim for possession. However he passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for a sum of Rs 135/- which was the amount of rent in arrears.

(2.) The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned Extra Assistant Judge who heard the appeal recorded the same finding and upheld the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. In that view of the matter he dismissed the appeal.

(3.) It is that appellate decree which is challenged in this revision application.