BHAGWATI SPINNING & WEAVING WORKS Vs. AHMEDABAD NEW COTTON MILLS CO. LTD.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Bhagwati Spinning And Weaving Works
Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
S.H.SHETH, J. -
(1.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession against the defendants on two grounds. Defendant No. 1 (tenant) had not used the suit premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and he had no reasonable cause to do so. Defendant No. 1 - the tenant - had unlawfully sublet a part of the suit premises to defendant No. 2. The suit premises are business premises where the powerlooms have been installed. The suit premises consist of three survey numbers - 16/14, 16/24 and 401/8. The rent agreed upon between the parties was Rs. 55/ - per month. The plaintiff alleged that survey No. 16/24, a part of the suit premises was unlawfully sublet by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Similarly survey No. 401/8, another part of the suit premises was unlawfully sublet by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Survey No. 16/24 had not been used by defendant No. 1 within the meaning of Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.
(2.) IN defence it was contended by defendant No. 1 that he had been using and occupying all of them and that his powerlooms were there. It was further alleged by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 had trespassed into survey No. 401/8, a part of the suit premises and that in collusion with the plaintiff he had handed over its possession to the plaintiff soon after institution of the suit.
The learned trial Court raised necessary issues and recorded his findings as follows : The plaintiff had not proved that survey No. 16/24 was unlawfully sublet by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff had proved that defendant No. 1 had not used survey No. 16/24 within the meaning of Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. The plaintiff had proved that defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet survey No. 401/8 to defendant No. 2. In view of the findings which he recorded in respect of survey Nos. 16/24 and 401/8, he passed against the defendant No. 1 decree for possession.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 appealed against the decree to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad. In this appeal two findings were challenged by the defendant No. 1. The first finding related to survey No. 16/24 and another finding related to survey No. 401/8. The plaintiff who was respondent did not try to challenge the finding recorded in respect of survey No. 16/24. The Appellate Bench confirmed the findings recorded against defendant No. 1 and dismissed the appeal. It is that appellate decree which is challenged by defendant No. 1 in this Civil Revision Application.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.