It was dismissed.
61 OF 1964 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 28, 1963 of the.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court and raises the question of the true companystruction of sub cis.
g and hh of sub s. 1 of S. 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Act LVII of 1947 , hereinafter called the Act.
It is against this order that he has filed this appeal.
The trial Court found that the respondent bona fide required the premises for his occupation.
The defendant then presented a revision petition to the High Court.
Me appellant companytested the suit on various grounds including the ones that the respondent did number reasonably and bona fide require the premises for his occupation and that he did number reasonably and bona fide require the premises for carrying out repairs.
A preliminary objection has been taken that the revision to the High Court was incompetent as numberquestion of juris diction was involved.
Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
T. Desai, B. J. Shelat, J. B. Dadachanji, 0.
The respondent sued for the ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he required the entire house, including the portion occupied by the appellant, for his residential purpose.
The facts leading to the appeal, in short, are that the appellant is a tenant of the ground floor of a house owned by the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.
Purshottam Trikamdas, M. 1.
The appellate Court, agreed with the views of the trial Court.
the plaintiff, have got the upper portion of the said suit bungalow vacated at present and only after the whole bungalow is got overhauled as stated in para above, 1, the plaintiff can utilize it for my personal use.
In the circumstances, on find ing it unsafe to stay in it without making additions, alterations and necessary changes, I, the plaintiff, am obliged to wait till I get possession of the whole bungalow.
The defendant went up in appeal.
He further stated in the plaint .
The whole suit bungalow is very old built about 75 years ago and at present its different parts are likely to give way and companylapse.
April 28, 1964.
Patel and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
697 of 1962.
Before sometime, a little portion of an upper balcony had companylapsed.
It was rejected.
and decreed the respondents suit for ejectment.
