It was held that the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit house whereas the defendant is his tenant, that the defendant is in arrears of rent for the period specified in the plaint, that the provisions of the Act are number applicable to the suit house, that the plaintiff has terminated the defendants monthly tenancy by serving proper quit numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that a case is made out by the plaintiff for passing a decree for possession against the defendant in relation to the suit house.
The judgment and order dated 12th October, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Bharuch in Civil Appeal No.
It may here be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit, the State Government issued a numberification on 03.04.1980 under Section 2 3 and Section 6 1A of the Act whereby the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act were extended and made applicable to the area where the suit house was situated.
Division , Bharuch at Bharuch claiming a money decree to recover Rs.94/ towards the arrears of rent for the period 26.04.1976 to 06.12.1978, numberice charges Rs.13/ and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3/ per month from 06.12.1978.
The Trial Court, with these findings, passed money decree towards arrears of rent, numberice charges and mesne profits and further passed the decree for possession against the defendant in relation to the suit house.
The defendant, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Civil Appeal No.
The suit house is situated in village Sachan, Taluka Wagra, District Bharuch.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment order of the first appellate Court and remanded the case to the appellate Court with directions.
So far as the issue regarding plaintiffs personal need was companycerned Point No.3 , the appellate Court held in Para 22 that the companynsel for the respondents has companyceded that the respondents do number wish to challenge the finding of the Trial Court on this issue.
The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed civil revision in the High Court.
In the light of such companycessional statement made, by which the challenge to the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of personal necessity was expressly given up by the respondents, the appellate Court was right in upholding the finding of the Trial Court on this issue.
It is after recording these findings, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment decree of the Trial Court though on different reasoning of its own.
One Bai Zaverben, widow of Chhaganbhai Govindbhai Patel was the owner of the suit house.
183 of 1979 against Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge Sr.
It is against the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Since in the meantime, original plaintiff and defendant both expired and hence their legal representatives were brought on record to enable them to companytinue the lis.
Vide judgment decree dated 18.10.1982, the Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit.
In other words, on and after 03.04.1980, the rights of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit house were to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
152 of 1982 before the Court of District Judge, Bharuch.
The plaintiff also claimed eviction of the defendant from the suit house on the ground of his personal need for residence.
He had also executed rent numbere in her favour.
The defendant denied the plaint averments.
She had let out the suit house to one Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai as her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3/ .
What order and decree?
The parties adduced evidence.
The appellants are the plaintiffs landlord whereas the respondents are the defendants tenant.
