1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant-tenant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji dated 03/01/2008 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21/1993 in so far as modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 209/1982 to the extent determining the standard rent at Rs. 150/- per month.
2. The respondents-landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 209/1982 against the applicant-original defendant-tenant for recovery of possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhoraji on the ground of arrears of rent. In the said suit, there was a dispute with respect standard rent raised by the applicant-original defendant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It was the case on behalf of the respondents-landlord, relying upon the rent receipt, that the standard rent, which was agreed and being paid by the applicant-original defendant-tenant was at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The respondents-landlord denied the rent receipt produced by the applicant-original defendant-tenant suggesting the monthly rent at Rs. 50/- per month. He relied upon the handwriting experts opinion. It appears that the handwriting experts report suggested that the rent receipt produced by the applicant-original defendant-tenant was found to be forged one and despite the same the learned trial Court determined the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit for recovery of possession, which was on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months. While dismissing the suit the learned trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 50/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhoraji in Regular Civil Suit No. 209/1982 the respondents-original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 21/1993 before the learned District Court, Rajkot and the learned Additional District Judge, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji dated 03/01/2008 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 21/1993 by impugned judgment and order has partly allowed the said appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court to the extent and by determining the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, however, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit qua recovery of possession. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court in so far as modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and determining the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month the applicant-original defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Shri N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original defendant has submitted that considering the rent receipt produced by the applicant-original defendant-tenant suggesting the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month the learned appellate Court has materially erred in determining the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. It is submitted that when there was word against word and the learned trial Court considered the same and thereafter determined the standard rent at the rat of Rs. 50/- per month the same was not required to be interfered with by the learned appellate Court. Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Heard Shri Gandhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original defendant-tenant and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It appears that it was the case on behalf of the applicant-original defendant-tenant that the standard rent of the premises was Rs. 50/- per month and in support of that he relied upon one xerox copy of the rent receipt. On the other hand, the respondents-landlord relied upon the rent receipt suggesting the monthly rent at Rs. 150/- per month. It appears that the xerox copy of the rent receipt, which was relied upon by the applicant-original defendant-tenant, was sent to the handwriting expert, who was of the opinion that the said rent receipt produced by the applicant-tenant is not genuine.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and believing the rent receipt produced by the respondents-landlord suggesting the rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month when the learned appellate Court has determined the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Court has committed an error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Civil Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.) siji Top