CHAMPABEN Vs. GOPINATH GANGADHAR DECD
LAWS(GJH)-1979-2-13
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 09,1979

CHAMPABEN D/O BHATUBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
GOPINATH GANGADHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.B.MAJMUDAR - (1.) This revision application is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 1965 against defendants for recovery oF the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting and arrears of rent. The suit of the plaintiffs having been dismissed by both the Courts below they have preferred the present revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that they had let the suit premises to defendant No. 1 who is since deceased on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/for the ground floor and Rs. 20/for the upper floor in addition to the municipal tax and other taxes. That defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay rent regularly and was in arrears from 1 March 1965; that defendant No. 1 had sublet part of the premises to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs by a notice dated and January 1966 demanded arrears of rent and taxes and terminated tenancy of defendant No. 1 and claimed possession of the suit premises. On the aforesaid grounds the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Civil Judge (J D.) Kalol Dist. Mehsana.
(3.) Original defendant No. 1 contested the suit by written statement Ex. 30 and contended that he was the tenant of the entire building consisting of three parts and the rent of three parts was Rs. 125/per month; that it was reduced to Rs. 121/at a later stage; that from 1-8-49 the rent of the entire building; was Rs. 141 P.M. that he was ready and willing to pay the rent that the agreed rent was not the Standard rent and hence the standard rent was required to be fixed that the 2nd defendant was sublet part of the premises since prior to 21st May 1959 and hence his possession was protected and defendant No. 1 was not liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting that defendant No. 1 also resisted the plaintiffs claim of possession on the ground of arrears ofrent and contended that he was a tenant ready and willing to pay the rent and he was not liable to be evicted on that ground. Defendant No. 2 also contended that subletting in his favour was protected as he was a sub-tenant since 1943.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.