ALL INDIA THEATRES SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PATEL MANUBHAI CHHOTALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are tenants in respect of Prabhat Talkies at Nadiad belonging to the opponents filed this civil revision petition aggrieved by the order of Assistant Judge at Nadiad confirming in appeal a decree for possession passed against them by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Dn. Nadiad in a suit filed by the opponents for possession of the theatre in question on the ground that the possession was required by plaintiff No. 1 for his personal and bona fide requirement and for establishing his son in business. The trial Court held it proved that plain- tiff No. 1 required the premises in question reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself and that greater hardship would not be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing to pass it and thereupon decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession. In appeal the learned Assistant Judge confirmed these two findings and also the decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) In revision four points were urged. Firstly relying on the English case of selwyn v. Hamill 1948 All England Law Reports 70 it is urged that when the Court was not satisfied that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide for use by plaintiff No. 1 and his son the Revision Court should set aside the decree in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The observations at page 72 of this English case are as follows :-

(3.) This proposition is no doubt correct because if the Act requires certain requirements to be satisfied and if the trial Court does not give a finding that those requirements are satisfied then the order passed by the trial Court would be without jurisdiction. But that is not the case in the instant case. There are findings by both the courts below on both the essential requirements of the case. This contention is therefore rejected.