MAYANKKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL Vs. C RAJNIKANT AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present is a civil revision under Section-29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act") against Judgement and Decree dated 30th March, 1992 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 1985 by the learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Surat, reversing Judgement and Decree dated 29th January, 1985 passed in Rent Suit No.483 of 1979 by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Surat.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision application are that the present applicant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking eviction of the opponents on the grounds described in the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have committed an act contrary to the provisions of Clause-(o) of Section-108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 i.e. he has changed the user of the premises, that without consent in writing by the landlord, he has erected certain permanent structures on the premises and that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. The plaintiff submitted before the Court that the premises were let out somewhere in the year 1929 to the father of the defendant for carrying on business of cotton brokerage, but, somewhere in the year 1971, he had changed the user and thereafter, he was carrying on the business of electrical goods. It was also submitted that extensive damage has been caused to the property and permanent structures have been raised by the defendants. The description of the permanent structures raised and the damage occasioned to the property were also detailed in the plaint. For Clause-(k) of Section-13(1) of the Rent Act, though certain pleadings were made, but, no serious efforts were made to prove the same.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant, after taking me through the judgement of the learned first Appellate Court, submitted that the learned Appellate Judge, without appreciating the legal provisions and without even appreciating the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court, simply observed that `pacca' constructions made by the tenant if are removed, then, no serious damage would be caused to the demised premises. He submits that the findings are patently perverse and show absolute and utter non-application of mind. His submission is that nature of the construction should be decisive of the seriousness of the matter and on that basis, the Court should decide that if such constructions are removed, whether serious damage would be occasioned to the property. The ground available to the landlord under Section-13(1)(a) was not pressed before this Court.