1. By way of the present Revision Application, the original-defendant has challenged the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2006 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 2005, by which, the appeal filed by the Opponent challenging the decision dated 21st November, 2005 delivered by the Small Causes Court No. 14, Ahmedabad, below Ex. 12, which was filed by original-plaintiff under Section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act, was allowed and the order passed below Ex. 12, in H.R.P.C. Suit No. 2776 of 2004 dated 21.11.2005 was set aside.
2. Brief Facts of the case are as under : -
2.1 That the Opponent filed H.R.P.C.S. No. 2276 of 2004 in the Court of learned Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and prayed for recovery of arrears of Rent of the suit premises from the present applicant.
2.2 During the pendency of the suit, the original-plaintiff filed an Application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act at Ex. 12 and prayed that the defendant be directed to pay arrears of the rent as well as to direct the defendant-tenant to pay the mense profit.
2.3 Learned Small Cause Court after hearing the parties and further considering the material available on record came to the conclusion that there is no rent-note or any other document which would establish that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises, therefore, the application below Ex. 12, in H.R.P.C.S. No. 2276 of 2004, was rejected on 21st November, 2012. The said order was challenged by original- plaintiff by way of filing Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 2005 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. After hearing both the sides by order dated 5th April, 2006, the Revision Application was allowed and the order passed below Ex. 12 in H.R.P.C.S. No. 2276 of 2004 dated 21.11.2006 was set aside. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah appearing for the applicant submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad is contrary to the evidence available on record and wrongly came to the conclusion that the suit premises, being Gujarat Housing Board premises, the custom prevailing in giving possession of the suit premises is made on the stamp paper of Rs.10/- and therefore, the property which is allegedly is transferred in the name of plaintiff by way of a stamp paper of Rs.10, the original-defendant was bound to pay the rent. He has further submitted that there is no rent-note produced by the original plaintiff nor any other document which would show that he is the owner of the premises. There is no registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefor, the order passed by the Appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned Advocate Mr. M.S. Shah further argued that by allowing the appeal, the appellate Court has just quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and no further directions are issued and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court becomes vulnerable and, therefore, also required to be quashed and set aside.
4. On the other hand, Ms. J.R. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the opponent has supported the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court and submitted that the property was transferred in the name of the original-plaintiff by Umeshbhai Vankar on stamp paper. Since there was mutual agreement between Umeshbhai Vankar and the plaintiff, the original defendant is not concerned whether the document is registered or not.
5. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. If the judgment of the Trial Court is perused, it appears that, the contract has been entered between Umeshbhai Vankar and plaintiff, which is not a registered one. The learned Trial Court has also perused the Municipal Tax Bills, which are in the name of Executive engineer, Housing Board, and occupier is the Plaintiff. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that in absence of any documentary evidence, the say of the plaintiff that the property was alloted by Gujarat Housing Board to Hansaben M.Vora and said Hansaben M.Vora has sold the suit premises to Umeshbhai Vankar. In absence of any documentary evidence, the say of the plaintiff was not believed. The reason assigned by the Trial Court that in absence of documentary evidence, the Trial Court has thought it fit not to direct the defendant to pay any rent to the plaintiff, who is not registered owner of the suit premises.
and apartments would lead to believe the court in favour of plaintiff. and I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court ought to have considered the case keeping in mind the provisions of Law with regard to the sale of property etc. I found that except the statements by the parties, in the pleadings there is no documentary evidence, which would, prima facie, lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff being the owner of the property, he is entitled for rent during the pendency of the suit.
7. In view of the above facts of the case, the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2006 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 1 of 2005 is quashed and set aside.
The aforementioned observations are made at this stage only and observations recorded here- in-above shall not be treated as final conclusion arrived at by this Court in this miscellaneous proceedings. Since the H.R.P.C. Suit No. 2276 of 2004 is to be heard and rights of the parties are yet to be decided finally, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit. The Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad is, therefore, directed to decide the H.R.P.C. Suit No. 2276 of 2004 as early as possible preferably on or before 30th June, 2013. Rule is made absolute. Accordingly, no order as to costs.
(A.J. Desai, J.) bhati*