1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant-tenant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 13/06/2000 passed by the learned Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 1856/1991 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 15/02/2012 passed by the learned appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 127/2000 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. The respondent-original plaintiff instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 1856/1991 before the learned Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad against the applicant-original defendant-tenant for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, change of user (under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act) and on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the landlord (under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act). By impugned judgment and decree dated 13/06/2000 the learned Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad has partly held that the respondent-original plaintiff is entitled to get eviction decree on the ground of change of user and on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises and/or his family members under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Court refused to pass the decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad dated 13/06/2000 in HRP Suit No. 1856/1991 in passing the eviction decree against the applicant-original defendant on the ground of change of user as well as on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises by the respondent-original plaintiff, the applicant-original defendant-tenant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 127/2000 before the learned appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad, which has been dismissed by the learned appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad by impugned judgment and order dated 15/02/2012. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below in passing the eviction decree against the applicant- original defendant on the ground of change of user as well as bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises by the respondent-original plaintiff or family members, the applicant- original defendant-tenant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Shri H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original defendant-tenant has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in passing the eviction decree against the applicant-original defendant on the ground of change of user and bonafide personal requirement. Shri Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original defendant has submitted that on the basis of the subsequent development with respect to the very property in question public notice has been issued by the Charity Commissioner framing the scheme under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and, therefore, it is submitted that once the property is likely to be declared to be the property of the Public Trust, no decree can be passed in favour of the respondent-original plaintiff on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of his family members. It is submitted that as such the respondent-original plaintiff is only the 'vahivat karta' of the temple. Making the above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Heard Shri Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original defendant-tenant and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below in passing the eviction decree against the applicant-original defendant-tenant on the ground of change of user and bonafide personal requirement. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below holding change of user of the suit premises as well as bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises by the respondent-original plaintiff and/or family members. Such findings of facts are given on appreciation of evidence. It is specifically held that though the suit premises was given for residence to the applicant-original defendant, the applicant-original defendant-tenant is using the same for non residential purpose and his running the shop. Both the Courts below have also held that the applicant- original defendant is residing alongwith his mother in another premises and, therefore, change of user of the suit premises is proved and so far as the personal bonafide requirement of the landlord and his family members is concerned, the Courts below have considered that in the respondent's family, in all there are 14 family members, out of which 11 members are major and 3 members are minor. The Courts below have also considered that the applicant-original defendant is residing with his mother since 1988. Thus, the change of user from residence to business and the personal bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the respondent-original plaintiff and his family members is proved. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error and/or illegality in passing the eviction decree against the applicant-original defendant on the ground of change of user and personal bonafide requirement. Now so far as the contention on behalf of the applicant-original defendant that public notice has been issued in the local newspaper with respect to framing of the scheme by the Charity Commissioner and, therefore, if the scheme is framed the property in question would be of the Trust and would be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and, therefore, no eviction decree can be passed on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the respondent- original plaintiff and his family members is concerned, it is required to be noted that as on today there is no scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner. It is required to be noted that as such the suit is of the year 1991 and the learned trial Court has passed the decree as far back as in the year 2000 and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid subsequent development and/or proposed framing of the scheme under the Bombay Public Trust Act, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which has been passed in the year 2000, which has been confirmed by the learned appellate Bench, is not required to be quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji