1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicants-heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff-original landlord to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court-learned Extra Assistant Judge, Valsad at Navsari dated 05/11/1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54/1997 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents-original defendants and has quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court passing the eviction decree against the respondents-tenants under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
2. The original plaintiff-original landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 43/1993 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Valsad against the respondents-tenant praying for decree of eviction under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11/04/1997 decreed the suit under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, however, did not accept the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the original defendants have acquired alternative accommodation and, therefore, refused to pass the decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 43/1993 the respondents preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 54/1997 before the learned District Court, Valsad and the learned appellate Court-learned Extra Assistant Judge, Valsad at Navsari by impugned judgment and order dated 05/11/1999 has allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court the applicants-heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff have preferred the present Civil Revision Application Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Today, when the present Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing, Shri Sanjay Joshi, learned advocate appearing for Shri P.R. Thakar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, under the instructions from the respondents, has stated at the bar that at present in the suit premises original respondent no. 1-Kailashben, mother of respondents nos. 2 and 3 aged 83 years is residing and, therefore, it is requested to allow respondent no. 1-Kailashben to reside in the suit premises till her life time. It is submitted that possession of the rented premises shall be handed over to the applicants-landlord after the death of respondent no. 1-Kailashben within one month of her death. It is stated by Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that separate undertaking has been filed by all the respondents herein affirmed by all the respondents that possession of the rented suit premises shall be handed over to the applicants-landlord after the death of Kailashben within one month from her death and tenancy would remain only up to the death of Kailashben and thereafter on the death of Kailashben respondents nos. 2 and 3 - her sons will not claim any right in the suit and they shall hand over the vacant suit premises to the applicants-landlord. It is further stated that further undertaking is also filed that till then the respondents shall not part with the possession to anybody else and/or shall not transfer the same to anybody and/or no third party right will not be created. The undertaking is directed to be taken on record.
4. Shri Dilip Kanojia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, under instructions from his client, has stated at the bar that the applicants have no objection in permitting respondent no. 1-Kailashben-mother of respondents nos. 2 and 3 to reside in the suit premises during her life time and thereafter possession of the suit premises shall be handed over to the applicants-landlord by respondents nos. 2 and 3.
5. In view of the above, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to dispose of the present Civil Revision Application accordingly.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Application is disposed of by permitting respondent no. 1-mother of respondents nos. 2 and 3, who is reported to be residing in the suit premises to reside/stay in the suit premises during her life time and on her death respondents nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the applicants within one month from the death of respondent no. 1 herein without fail. In the meantime, respondents are hereby restrained from parting with the possession and/or transferring the same to any third party and they are further restrained from creating third party rights in the suit property. Respondents nos. 2 and 3 are directed to act as stated in the undertaking.
7. With this, the present Civil Revision Application is disposed of. Order in terms of the above. No cost.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.) siji Top