RAJGOR SHANTILAL SHIVJI Vs. TRUSTEES OF JIVIBAI ALIAS MONGIBAI WILL TRUST
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
RAJGOR SHANTILAL SHIVJI
Trustees Of Jivibai Trust
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petitioner submitted an application for fixation of standard rent of the premises in his possession asserting his right as tenant but the respondent Nos. 1 2 and 3 the Trustees of Jivibai Alias Mongibai Will Trust denied the relationship of tenant and landlord and contended that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises consisting of one room for sometime prior to the date of service of notice to the petitioner as the petitioner is the son of the pujari of the temple who is also occupying certain portion of the building. As the dispute was about the relationship of tenant and landlord the learned trial Jadge raised issue and the parties led the evidence before the trial Court. On appreciation of the evidence the learned trial Judge held the petitioner as tenant but the learned District Judge in appeal did not agree with that finding observing it to be perverse and not according to law and allowed the revision application holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the tenant of the premises. The judgment of the learned District Judge is assailed in this Special Civil Application under Art. 227 of Constitution of India.
(2.)Shri Chinoy learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 29 of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act (to be referred as Bombay Rent Act) as the judgment of the District Judge is simply based on appreciation of evidence. Referring to the judgment Shri Chinoy submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the District Judge is contrary to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Judge and the finding of the District Judge is perverse and not according to law and therefore this Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of Constitution of India.
(3.)The learned District Judge held the judgment by the trial Court as perverse and not according to law for various reasons viz. (i) the origin of tenancy was not established; (ii) the conduct of the petitioner in not replying to the notice in which it was alleged that he was unauthorisedly occupying the premises; (iii) the inadmissible evidence i. e. certificate issued by the Municipality was accepted and relied on; (vi) adverse inference drawn against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the account books were not produced; (v) evidence of the some of two witnesses of the petitioner accepted even though their veracity was doubtful and (vi) the possession of the premises by petitioner was explained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.