1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant- original plaintiff-landlord to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Surendranagar dated 24/11/2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2001 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the original defendant and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhtar dated 30/12/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 10/1995.
2. The applicant-original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 10/1995 against the original defendant-tenant seeking eviction decree under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of bonafide and personal requirement of the applicant-original plaintiff-landlord. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhtar by judgment and decree dated 30/12/2000 decreed the suit and directed the original defendant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhtar dated 30/12/2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 10/1995 in decreeing the suit, original defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 4/2001 before the learned District Court, Surendranagar and considering the fact that the applicant-original plaintiff purchased the suit property alongwith the sitting tenant and, therefore, he cannot seek eviction decree on the ground of his personal bonafide requirement and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniklal Manilal Bhatt Vs. Ramanlal Nathubhai Kapadiya reported in 1985 (2) GLR 901, the learned appellate Court allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court, the applicant- original plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is to be noted that during pendency of the present Civil Revision Application, original defendant has expired and, therefore, his heirs are brought on record.
3. Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that the learned appellate Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that as such the original defendant had acquired two to three other premises. It is submitted that even at present the suit premises is not used at all. It is further submitted that when the learned trial Court considered personal bonafide requirement of the applicant-original plaintiff and when the same was established and when the eviction decree was passed, the learned appellate Court has materially erred in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. By making the above submission, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Having heard Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, more particularly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Court has committed any error and/or illegality in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was passed under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is required to be noted and which is not in dispute that when the applicant-original plaintiff purchased the suit property he purchased with the sitting tenant and, therefore, considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniklal Manilal Bhatt (Supra) such an owner, who has purchased the property alongwith the sitting tenant, cannot seek eviction of a tenant on the ground that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for occupation by himself. As held by the Division Bench of this Court such an owner cannot be held to be the landlord for the purpose of Clause (g) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. In view of the above, no illegality has been committed by the learned appellate Court in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which is passed solely under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
5. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the applicant- original plaintiff that the original defendant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation and/or that the suit premises is not used at all is concerned, it will always be open for the applicant-original plaintiff to institute the suit and seek possession on the aforesaid ground as it will be a fresh/new cause of action and the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. However, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Court has committed any error and/or illegality in allowing the appeal, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji