1. By way of the present petition under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 the original – appellant tenant has challenged the judgement and decree dated 15.11.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Suit No. 355 of 1990, which has been confirmed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Regular Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007 by passing judgement and order dated 22.6.2012, whereby the decree passed by the Trial Court under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rent Act is confirmed by the Appellate Court by evicting the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
That the respondent – original Plaintiff Bharuch Textile Mills filed Regular Civil Suit No. 355 of 1999 in the Court of 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge. That the applicant – original defendant was allotted the disputed property being an employee of the plaintiff Textile, which is situated in the mill compound itself and since he had retired, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Rent Act and hence, sought for decree on the ground that the defendant had made permanent structure and alteration in the disputed suit premises and had sub-leted the suit premises to other relatives. Hence, the plaintiff has sought the vacant possession of the suit premises. The said suit was opposed by the present petitioner by filing written statement. The plaintiff mill examined two witnesses, however, the defendant i.e. present petitioner did not examine himself nor any other person. The Trial Court framed issues at Exh. 13, by which, several questions of law and facts were framed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff textile mill examined two other witnesses and produced documentary evidence in support of its case. The present petitioner – defendant neither examined himself as defendant in the suit nor examined any witnesses in support of his case.
3. After considering the deposition of the witnesses and the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that since the property was found on the rental basis by the mill to the petitioner – defendant as its employee and since the petitioner – defendant had retired from the services, the plaintiff textile mill is entitled for a decree of eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rent Act. It was also held that the plaintiff textile mill was bonafidely in need of the disputed property and also held that the plaintiff mill would suffer hardships and inconvenience, if the possession is not handed over to the plaintiff. The judgement and decree dated 15.11.2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge came to be challenged by the present petitioner by way of Regular Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007 in the Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bharuch. After considering the record of the case and judgement passed by the Trial Court, the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 22.6.2012, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed on the ground of bonafide requirements and hardships and confirmed the judgement and decree passed on the ground of service tenancy i.e. under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. Hence, this Revision Application.
4. Mr. Kinariwala submitted that the respondent – plaintiff mill, though, examined two witnesses, could not establish that the amount of Rs.4/- per annum was deducted from his salary. He has submitted that the electricity bill was issued in the name of the petitioner tenant and therefore, he was the regular tenant in the suit premises. He has taken me through the judgement of the Appellate Court and has submitted that the witnesses had admitted that there is no rent agreement or allotment letter of the suit premises, the Trial Court has passed decree of eviction under the provisions of section 13(1)(f) of the Act and that the Appellate Court has committed error in confirming the same.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.P.Kinariwala with Mr. Joy Mathew for the petitioner. I have gone through the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court with regard to the question of service tenancy of the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the respondent textile mill is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 and manufacturing clothes since many years. To provide facility for its workmen, the mill had constructed number of quarters as well as several roads. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner tenant was working with the mill and being an employee of the mill, he was allotted a room. The petitioner had resigned from the mill and that the suit was filed in the year 1990. The petitioner tenant was not working with the mill. The witness namely Satish Hiralbhai, who has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff mill at Exh. 28, has categorically deposed that the petitioner was working with the mill. The plaintiff Textile Mill has produced the Salary Register at Exh. 133, which is clearly established that the petitioner was working with the mill and it is also an admitted position that the disputed property belongs to the mill. Other witness namely, Ishwarkumar Raghuprasad, who has been examined by the original plaintiff mill at Exh. 56, has also categorically deposed before the Court that the defendant after leaving the service of the mill had not paid any rent to the mill. It is pertinent to note that both these witnesses are not examined by the petitioner tenant and therefore, whatever they have stated before the Court, have gone unchallenged.
As stated herein above, the petitioner has not come forward to prove his case that he is regular tenant of the premises which was given on rent to him being an employee of the mill. These aspects are exhaustively dealt with by the Trial Court while considering the question of the service tenancy. Now considering the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court has dealt with the question about the distinction between the service occupancy and service tenancy and finally came to conclusion that the petitioner was given the suit premises on rent being in service in the plaintiff mill.
6. The contention raised by Mr. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the name in the electricity bill, record etc. is concerned, the same has been considered by this Court in case of Suresh Chandra Lalbhai Desai V. Official Liquidator, Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. (in liquidation) reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1644. It has been held that while relying on the case under the provisions the Companies Act as well as under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rent act, the employee cannot claim tenancy rights on the basis of continuous occupancy, municipal tax, electricity bills etc. It has been also held that the company can evict its employee either under Section 60 of the Companies Act or under Section 13(1)(f) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is well settled principle of law that power under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is very limited and scope to interfere with the findings of the facts are not permissible.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and concurrent findings of both the Courts below with regard to the issue of the service tenancy, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order passed by both the Courts below and hence, the present Revision Application is dismissed.
*Kazi
(A.J.DESAI, J.)