1.0. Present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act") has been preferred by the applicant to quash and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court- learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1284 of 1983 by which the learned trial Court has passed the eviction decree against the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court- learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar dated 18.2.2012 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2006, by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit.
2.0. Shri Sandeep Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that while passing the eviction decree learned trial Court has not considered whether alternative accommodation acquired by the petitioner -tenant is suitable or not. Therefore, it is submitted that unless and until it is proved that petitioner-tenant has acquired the alternative accommodation which is suitable for him and his family members no eviction decree can be passed.
3.0. It is also further submitted that even the factum of acquiring alternative accommodation by the petitioner -tenant is not established and / or proved by other documentary evidence such as sale deed and / or share certificate. Therefore, it is requested to allow / admit the present Civil Revision Application.
4.0. Heard Shri Sandeep Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner-original tenant at length and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding that petitioner-tenant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation which was purchased in the name of his wife Kankuben. On appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court has found that the tenant was residing with his family members in the alternative accommodation already acquired. While holding so learned trial Court also considered the deposition of the Postman who was independent witness. It is required to be noted that as such so far as defendant is concerned, it was total denial by him that he and / or his wife has acquired in other accommodation. It was never the case on behalf of the defendant that the alternative accommodation which has been acquired is not suitable for his family members. No such pleadings were there. Under the circumstances, when on evidence it has been established that original defendant has acquired alternative accommodation and he is residing with his family in newly premises and when it was never case of the defendant that such premises is not suitable, the aforesaid aspect was not required to be considered at all. The defendant acquired the accommodation and shifting their and still to deny the same, is shows the conduct on the part of the tenant.
5.0. No illegality has been committed by both the Courts below in passing the eviction decree on the ground that the petitioner has acquired alternative suitable accommodation. No interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
( M. R. Shah, J. ) "kaushik"
Top