K.S. Jhaveri, J.@mdashBy way of present Revision Application, the applicant has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 06th September 1993 passed by the District Judge, Rajkot District, Rajkot, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989 as well as the judgment and decree dated 20th December 1988 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Rajkot, in Rent Suit No. 308 of 1982.
2. It is the case of the applicant that the property belonging to the applicant situated at Rajkot was let out to the deceased Amrutlal long back at monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The said suit property comprised of two rooms, a kitchen and a lobby at the ground floor and a room at the first floor, which is situated in Amichand Khara Street, Boghani Street at Rajkot.
2.1 On the death of the said Amrutlal, present opponents have become tenants in respect of the suit property as per the case of the applicant, and therefore, all the opponents have been joined as parties to the present litigation and they were also parties to the suit, which was instituted mainly on the ground that the opponents raised a permanent structure in the suit premises without express consent or permission of the applicant and on the ground that the opponents acquired suitable residential accommodation after coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), which ultimately came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Hence, present appeal.
3. Before proceeding with the matter, it must be noted that present matter was listed before this Court on 03rd May 2011 and again listed on 04th May 2011. Lastly the matter was listed on 09th May 2011 and it was adjourned to 20th June 2011 at the request made by the learned advocate for the applicant. On 20th June 2011, the learned advocate for the opponent filed a leave note and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to today i.e. 06th July 2011. On last all the adjournments, it was not pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicant that one Civil Application bearing No. 6968 of 2005 is pending before this Court. However, after the matter was argued today in the first session, in the second session i.e. after recess time, it is argued by the learned advocate for the applicant that since aforesaid Civil Application is pending, this Court may not decide present Revision Application.
3.1 On perusal of the record, it transpires that the said Civil Application has been disposed of vide order dated 30th March 2007 passed by this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J), wherein the learned advocate for the applicant himself had remained present. Thus, the aforesaid submission is nothing but a tool seeking adjournment.
3.2 It is also required to be noted that an endeavour is made by the learned advocate for the applicant to put subsequent development in the matter by way of an additional evidence, which has not been done so till date. The matter is as old as of the year 1994 and the same is being listed for final hearing since March, 2011. For the first time, the learned advocate for the applicant was granted time to put his house in order. Thus, prima facie seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting with the matter. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that such practice adopted by the learned advocate for the applicant is required to be deprecated in the interest of justice.
4. Mr.S.M. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that unless the suit is for recovery of rent, the trial Court has, in a suit for possession, no jurisdiction to decide the standard rent; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that acquisition of alternative residence is not at all disputed by the opponents; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the provision of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act; that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that summons of the suit are served upon the opponents at their respective addresses of alternative accommodation and that the Courts below ought to have appreciated that the opponents have raised permanent structure in the suit premises without prior permission of the applicant. In support of his submissions, Mr. Shah has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of
5. As against the same, Mr. S.N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respective opponents, has submitted that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the relevant aspects of the matter as well as evidence on record and arrived at the impugned conclusion. The Courts below have in detail narrated the evidence and dealt with each argument advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant properly and rendered the judgment and decree, which is just and proper. In view of aforesaid, it is prayed that present Revision Application may be rejected.
6. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the Revision Application and the documentary evidence produced on record, including the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, it transpires that the Courts below have after going through the pros and cons of the matter decided the matter and came to the impugned conclusion, which is just and proper.
6.1 So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the applicant that the opponents have acquired suitable vacant residential accommodation is concerned, it is required to be noted that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been staying in their own properties in different localities in different buildings. They have not gone before the Courts below to contest the matter. However, the opponent No. 1 has deposed before the trial Court that his son Vinodkumar is staying in the suit property with his family. It is pertinent to note that the said fact is supported by the electricity bills and its receipts. The Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence has rightly observed that the evidence also goes to show that opponent No. 7-Pravinaben is also staying in some portion of the suit premises with members of her family. It is also rightly observed by the Appellate Court that considering the size of the family and considering the size of rooms of the property purchased by the first opponent, it seems that it is not possible for the opponents to accommodate themselves in the property purchased by the first opponent in the name of Vinodkumar and Kiritkumar. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the property purchased by the first opponent in the name of his sons is suitable to accommodate entire family. Thus, the Courts below have rightly held that the applicant has failed to establish that the opponents have acquired suitable vacant residential accommodation.
6.2 The contention of the learned advocate for the applicant that the opponents have made permanent structure in the suit premises without express consent or permission of the applicant has rightly been dealt with by the Courts below. It is pertinent to note that when the opponents were required to convert latrine in terms of policy decision of the Rajkot Muncipal Corporation, it is not open to the applicant, after refusing to convert the latrine as per requirements, to argue that the construction is permanent construction and therefore, the opponents should be evicted from the rented property. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the opponents have raised construction of permanent nature without permission or consent of the applicant. Thus, the Courts below have rightly come to the impugned conclusion.
6.3 The other contentions raised by the learned advocate for the applicant before this Court were not the points of consideration before the Appellate Court. Hence, the same are not dealt with by this Court. It is, however, made clear that the trial Court has rightly decided all the issues raised before it after taking into consideration the evidence on record and relevant aspects of the matter and arrived at the impugned conclusion.
6.4 The facts of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pasupuleti (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant are materially different than that of the present case. In the above cited decision, the order of the High Court remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh by allowing the parties to lead evidence, was set aside by the Apex Court, which is not so in the present case. In the present case, the learned advocate for the applicant has been granted sufficient opportunity to place on record the subsequent development. However, as demonstrated hereinabove, the learned advocate for the applicant has thoroughly failed to place on record any such subsequent development.
7. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the impugned conclusion. Over and above the aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Courts below and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the concurrent findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. No case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Hence, present Revision Application deserves to be rejected.
8. For the foregoing reasons, present Revision Application fails and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.
