Gujarat High CourtHaren vs United on 18 January, 2011Author:Rajesh H.ShuklaBench:Rajesh H.ShuklaGujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CRA/799/1997	 4/ 4	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 799 of 1997
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

HAREN
JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

UNITED
FIRE & GENERAL INSU.CO.LTD. - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
AR THACKER for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 18/01/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
JUDGMENT1.	Present
revision application has been filed by the petitioner-original
plaintiff for the prayers that the judgment and order passed by the
learned Small Cause Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of
1985 dated 19th February, 1990 as well as judgment and
order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 1990 passed by the
learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot dated 28th February,
1997 confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trail
Court, may be quashed and set aside on the grounds set out in the
memo of this revision application inter alia  contending that
both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the suit
premises was let out for the office purpose. However, thereafter
insurance company shifted its office and the suit premises remained
closed and they did not use suit premises for office purpose.  It is
also contended that the premises was let out for the purpose of
office use by the respondent insurance company and admittedly when it
has not been used for office purpose, suit for eviction ought to have
been entertained. Reference has been placed on the judgment reported
in 18 GLR 398 in the case ofKansara Mohanlal Kanji vs. Chhipa Darji Nathubhai.2.	
Heard Mr.A.R.Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for opponents3.	Learned
advocate Mr.A.R.Thakkar for the petitioner submitted that admittedly
premises has not been used for the business purpose for which it was
let out to the respondent insurance company. Therefore, both the
courts have failed in appreciating this aspect resulting into
miscarriage of justice and therefore, present revision application
may be allowed. He submitted that when the respondent insurance
company has shifted its office and premises is not being used for
business purpose, it cannot be used for another purpose which has not
been appreciated and therefore present revision application may be
allowed.4.	
 Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for opponent submitted that
two concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below
may not be disturbed and present revision application may be
dismissed.5.	
 Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati has also referred to and relied upon
judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (2) GLH 159 in the
case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Durlabhji Jamnadas
dealing with identical facts
on the issue where considering the provisions of theRent Act, where
the premises was let out to one insurance company for business
purpose which was thereafter shifted. However, the insurance company
was making use of the said premises for keeping books and other
materials like in the present case. The High Court, in the aforesaid
judgment, has, after considering submissions, observed that
tenant-insurance company is using the same for keeping the goods or
documents pertaining to insurance company and it cannot be said that
premises is not in use by the insurance company for business.6.	Therefore,
in light of this observation and findings of fact on the same issue,
present Revision Application deserves to be dismissed and it is
dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.(RAJESH
H. SHUKLA, J.)
 


AmitTop