1. The present Civil Revision Application u/s.29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Bombay Rents Act") has been preferred by the applicants herein - original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and decree dated 25/01/1999 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.542 of 1986, by which, learned Trial Court has dismissed the said suit preferred by the applicants herein - original plaintiff as well as impugned judgement and order dated 24/11/2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 1999, by which, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.
2. That the original plaintiffs instituted Rent Suit No.542 of 1986 against the original defendants in the Court of learned Small Causes Court, Vadodara for recovery of possession on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises and on the ground that the defendants have made permanent construction without prior intimation and/or sanction of the applicants herein-landlord. That the learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that even defendant No.2 is in possession since year 1959 and within the knowledge of the trustees as one of the trustee, who is senior advocate practicing in Vadodara Court having office in the said premises and considering the fact that the suit was damaged/burnt in the communal riots and, thereafter, it was repaired and iron gate was put, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to make out the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises as well as making permanent structure without prior sanction of the applicants-landlord.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the suit, original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 1999 before learned District Court, Vadodara and learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Vadodara by impugned judgement and order dated 24/11/2011 confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below, the applicants herein - original plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Application u/s.29(2) of the Bombay Rents Act.
4. Mr.Harshad Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in not passing the eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises and on the ground that the defendants have made permanent construction without prior intimation and/or sanction of the applicants herein - landlord. It is submitted that by making holes in the suit premises as well as putting up iron gate by constructing two beams, it have caused damage to the suit premises and, therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have passed eviction decree. Even learned Trial Court has materially erred in holding that the plaintiffs were aware of the tenancy, occupation and possession of defendant No.2 and he was continued in possession and occupation since 1959 and, therefore, he was permissible user by the plaintiffs. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
5. Heard Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants herein - original plaintiffs and considered and gone through the judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of facts given by both the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to prove sub-letting in favour of defendant No.2. There are concurrent findings of facts given by both the Courts below that the defendants have made permanent construction, which has caused damage to the suit property and the said findings are on appreciation of evidence. This Court has considered the judgement and orders passed by both the Courts below and reasoning given by both the Courts and this Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed by learned Trial Court in dismissing the suit and the same is confirmed by learned Appellate Court. It appears that it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 has sub-letted the suit premises in favour of defendant No.2 and it has come to the conclusion that defendant No.2 is in occupation and possession of the suit premises since 1959 and one of the trustee of the trust is having his office in the same building and, therefore, there are concurrent finding of fact given by both the Courts below that defendant No.2 was in occupation and possession of the suit premises as permissible user by the plaintiffs. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Trial Court has committed any error in not passing the eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises.
So far as contention on behalf of the applicants herein that learned Trial Court has materially erred in not passing the decree on the ground that the defendants have put up the permanent construction without prior permission of the landlord is concerned, it is required to be noted that the suit shop was damaged in communal riots and defendants were required to repair the same and, therefore, iron gates with beams were put up. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit and in not passing eviction decree on the ground of permanent construction without permission of the applicants herein- landlord. It has come on record that even petitioners requested the Government to restore the position, which was prevailing prior to shop burnt in the communal riots. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below in exercise of power u/s.29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
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. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti Top