Date : 14/06/2012 1. Present Civil Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the petitioner herein - original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dtd.19/4/1995 passed by the learned appellate court - learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara in Civil Appeal No.308 of 1980 by which the learned appellate court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner - original appellant / plaintiff and has confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court in dismissing the suit which was filed by the petitioner for eviction of the decree against the respondent tenant.
2. The petitioner herein – original plaintiff instituted Rent Suit No.193 of 1975 against the respondent herein – original tenant, in the court of learned Small Causes Court at Vadodara for recovery of possession / Eviction Decree on the ground of bonafide requirement. That the learned trial court dismissed the suit against which the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No.308 of 1980 and the learned appellate court - learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara by the impugned Judgement and Order dismissed the appeal by holding that, considering the Proviso to section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, petitioner cannot be said to be landlord for seeking eviction decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, as the tenant was prior to the relevant date i.e. prior to 1969 i.e. in the present case since 1960 and the petitioner became owner / Partner of the Partnership Firm subsequently i.e. in the year 1969/1974. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and decree / Orders passed by both the courts below, petitioner - original plaintiff has preferred present Civil Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Having heard Mr.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and considering the impugned judgement and decree / orders passed by both the courts below and considering Proviso to Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act and considering the fact that the property in question was leased in favour of the respondent herein since 1960 and the petitioner became Partner of the Partnership Firm / owner of the disputed property after the relevant date mentioned in section 13(1)(g) / Proviso to Section 13(1)(g) and therefore, both the courts below have rightly held that the petitioner cannot be said to be landlord seeking eviction decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in holding that the petitioner cannot be said to be landlord for seeking eviction decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act and hence no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
4. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present Civil Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik