1. The present Civil Revision Application u/s.29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the petitioners herein – original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 28/04/1995 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.928 of 1986 as well as impugned judgement and order dated 13/07/1999 passed by learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.72 of 1995, by which, learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court.
2. That the respondents herein - original plaintiffs instituted HRP Suit No.928 of 1986 for passing decree of eviction under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act mainly on the grounds of arrears of rent; unlawful sub-letting, making permanent changes in the suit premises and causing damage to it; change of user as well as conduct amounting to nuisance and annoyance by the original defendants. That the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and passed eviction decree dated 28/04/1995 under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree dated 28/04/1995 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in decreeing the suit and passing eviction decree against the petitioners herein – original defendants, the petitioners herein – original defendants have preferred the Civil Appeal No.72 of 1995 before learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad by impugned judgement and order dated 13/07/1999 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below, the petitioners herein – original defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Application u/s.29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. That the petitioners herein – original defendants have also preferred Civil Application No.11308 of 2011 pointing out subsequent events by submitting that by passage of time there is no nuisance for which eviction decree was passed by learned Trial Court and confirmed by learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below and even considering relevant evidences, documentary as well as oral received from the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are concurrent finding of facts given by both the Courts below in holding that there is nuisance by the original defendants. The finding of facts given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act unless they are found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein is not in a position to point out that finding of facts given by both the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Trial Court has committed an error and/or illegality in passing eviction decree under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, which has been confirmed by learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad.
6. Now so far as Civil Application No.11308 of 2011 is concerned, it is required to be noted that what is required to be considered by the Court is the position which was prevailing at the time of filing of the suit and not subsequent events. Once it was found that at the relevant time considering the position as on the date on which the suit is filed, that eviction decree under section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act is warranted and considering subsequent position in the year 2010-2011, the eviction decree passed by learned Trial Court and confirmed by learned Appellate Court is not required to be quashed and set aside.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Civil Revision Application as well as Civil Application deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti