on july 29 1958 the respondents applied under s. 17 1 of the act to the trial companyrt to obtain possession of the said premises on the ground that the appellant had failed to occupy the said premises within a period of one month from the date when he recovered possession as required by s. 17 1 .
this claim was resisted by the respondents.
appeal by special leave from the order dated april 11 1962 of the gujarat high companyrtin civil revision application number 335 of 1962.
in the result both the appeals were dismissed on april 28 1956.
the said plot measures 32406 sq.
in 1951 the appellant sued the respondents in ejectment.
the appellant then filed an execution application and obtained possession of 2/3rds of the premises in question on june 29 1957.
the said question arises in this way.
this decree was challenged both by the appellant and the respondents by cross appeals in the district companyrt.
it appears that at the trial the appellants case was that he wanted the said premises for the purpose of his timber business.
accordingly a decree was passed in his favour to that extent on march 16 1955.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 804 of 1962.
eventually however the appellant occupied the said premises on october 24 1957 number for carrying on his timber business but for storing or stocking materials of sanitary works and building contracts which business he had started in partnership on that day.
c. setalvad and i. n. shroff for the appellant.
this revisional application was treated as an appeal because the order passed by the trial companyrt was applicable.
the district companyrt held that the view taken by the trial companyrt was substantially right and there was numberreason to interfere with the decree passed by it.
this plot was in the possession of the respondents bai vijkor others as tenants.
t. desai j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the respondents.
the appellant krishanlal ishwarlal desai is the landlord who owns an open plot of land named hathi khada in kalaswadi town in the district of surat.
he claimed that under s. 13 1 g and i of the act he was entitled to recover possession of the premises companysisting of the open plot in question.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this appeal by special leave raises a short question about the companystruction of section 17 of the bombay rents.
the appellant had companystructed a shed for the watchmen to look after the articles which were stored on the open plot.
