HARSHADKUMAR SUNDARLAL DALAL Vs. HASMUKHBEN WD O CHIMANLAL BHOGILAL DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opponents No. 1 to 6 who are original plaintiffs led Regular Civil Suit No. 423 of 1972 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad against Chandraprasad Motibhai Pandya under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Chandra prasad died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on record. The suit was decreed; and the defendants were directed to open the door of the suit room by removing the lock and chain applied by them from inside and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs. The defendants therefore filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree in the Court of the District Judge Kaira being Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1979. That Court held the appeal to be not maintainable in view of the bar contained in sec. 6 (3) of the Act. The petitioners who are defendants No. 3 to 5 have therefore filed this revision application challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) A few facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application may now be stated. Chimanlal Bhogilal Desai husband of plaintiff No. 1 d father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 took on lease a part of the house belonging to Chandraprasad. It consisted of a room kitchen chowk and bath room on the ground floor one room on the first floor and one room on the second floor. He had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 12.00. According to the plaintiffs deceased Chimanlal wanted some more space as he found it difficult to run his office in the premises in his possession. He therefore requested Chandraprasad to give one. more room to him on the first floor. Chandraprasad agreed to give the suit room on the condition that rent was increased and that he was allowed to use the said room for the purpose of passage. Chimanlal accepted both these conditions; and therefore the suit room was let out by Chandraprasad to him. The rent was increased from Rs. 12.00 to Rs. 20.00. Till his death in February 1970 Chimanlal used that room as his office and thereafter the plaintiffs started using the same for residential purposes. On 15-5-1972 Chandraprasad all of a sudden closed the door on the suit room from inside without their consent and thus deprived them of the use thereof. The plaintiffs therefore alleging dispossession otherwise than in due course of law filed the suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to open the door of the suit room by removing the lock and chain applied by them from inside and for recovering possession.

(3.) The suit was resisted on the ground that the suit room was not given on lease to deceased Chimanlal but he was merely allowed to use the same and thus he was only a licensee of that room. No. rent was charged from him for the use of the said room. Chandraprasad had requested Chimanlal to remove his goods from the suit room but he had not paid any heed. After his death in February 1970 the plaintiffs were also requested to hand over possession by removing their goods as the license in favour of Chimanlal had expired on his death but the plaintiffs did not comply with the request and therefore a notice was given to the plaintiffs formally terminating their license Thereafter various attempts to persuade them wore made but they did not comply with the requests made by Chandraprasad and therefore Chandraprasad was constrained to close the door of that room from inside It was contended that after termination of the license neither Chimanlal nor his heirs had any right to remain in possession of the suit room and they had become trespassers thereafter.