- (1.)The present revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is by the tenant-original defendant No.1, against whom the Trial Court passed decree for eviction of the suit premises under Section 13(1)(e) on the ground of subletting. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2006 of learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur, who dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.06 of 2003 confirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court.
(2.)Respondent herein-the landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No.03 of 1990 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Palanpur against the applicant herein and one Sureshkumar Babulal Thakkar arraigned as defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 respectively. In the suit, the plaintiffs case was that the property known as Haresh Nivas belonged to their ownership, of which the suit property being a shop bearing House No.1/1505 was rented to defendant No.1 from 01st July, 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs.75/- for the purpose of transport business. It was the case of the landlord that the tenant carried the business of transport for some time, and thereafter the shop was closed; the tenant had started his another business elsewhere in the town; he gave away the suit shop by way of subletting to defendant No.2 and earned big amount of Paghari. It was stated that the plaintiff gave notice dated 14th March, 1989 to the tenant as soon as he came to know about the said fact and asked the tenant to handover the possession. In the plaint, it was further alleged that in the said notice, the defendant No.1 was a tenant in arrears and rent of for the period of 26 months plus Municipal Tax amount due for which the tenant was liable, and hence was required to pay towards Rent and Tax total Rs.3,281/-.
2.1 Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their common written statement (Exh.21) denied the case of the plaintiff, further stating that the business was not closed. It was the say of the defendants that they had started business in partnership since last three years and accordingly, defendant No.2 was the partner in the business. Defendant No.1 accepted the case of the plaintiff that he was staying at another place and was doing up-down to Palanpur for the purpose of business.

(3.)The learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) framed issues at Exhibit 25 and held against the applicant in respect of ground of subletting. The issue whether the plaintiff proved that he was entitled to decree of eviction for non-payment of rent after service of notice was answered in affirmative by the Trial Court, however, in the body of the judgment, no discussion was found on that aspect. The Trial Court passed judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2003 against the defendants directing them to vacate the suit premises and further directed that they should pay rent at the rate of Rs.75/- per month to the plaintiff starting from 01st February, 2002. The lower Appellate Court considered the matter in Regular Civil Appeal preferred at the instance of the tenant, and dismissed the same, holding that the subletting was proved.