1. Present Civil Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Bombay Rent Act" for short) has been preferred by the petitioner herein -
original defendant/tenant to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.10/10/2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2009, by which the learned appellate court has partly allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 20 of 2003 in dismissing the suit and in dismissing the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement of the plaintiff's house and subsequently directing the petitioner
- original defendant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.
2.00. The respondent herein - original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.20 of 2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar against the petitioner herein - original defendant/tenant for recovery of the possession on the ground of arrears of rent as well as bonafide requirement of the plaintiff / plaintiff's husband.
2.01. That by the judgement and decree dtd.30/6/2009 the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ground of arrears of rent as well as her / her husband's bonafide requirements.
2.02.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree dtd.30/6/2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2003 in dismissing the suit and not passing eviction decree, the respondent herein - original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.41 of 2009 and the learned appellate court - learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar by the impugned Judgement and Order / decree dtd.10/10/2011 has been pleased to allow the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit and decreeing the suit and passing the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement of the suit premises of the plaintiff and her husband.
2.03. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement and Order dtd.10/10/2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2009, petitioner herein - original defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Application No. under section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act.
4. During the course of the hearing of the present Civil Revision Application, by way of Civil Application No.13320 of 2011 and Civil Application No.158 of 2012, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have submitted additional documents by submitting that after institution of the suit, the respective parties - original plaintiff as well as defendant have acquired other properties.
5. In view of the above, the issue as to who will suffer hardship/greater hardship if the eviction decree is passed, is required be considered.
6. Under the circumstances, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties under the instructions of their respective clients that the matter may be remanded to the learned appellate court to consider the question with respect to hardship/greater hardship in light of the subsequent development of acquiring properties by the respective parties.
7. Mr.Dhaval Vyas, learned advocate has stated at the bar that one Mr.Pradip Popat Shah, Partner of original defendant is personally present in the Court and under his instructions, he has made the aforesaid statement under the instructions.
8. Mr.Pancholi, learned advocate has also stated at the bar that he has made the aforesaid statement under the instructions from one Mr.Shabbir Hussein - husband of the original plaintiff, who is personally present in the Court.
9. It is agreed between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the finding with respect to bonafide requirement of the original plaintiff and/or her husband is not disturbed and the same is confirmed and the learned appellate court is required to consider the question with respect to hardship/greater hardship only.
10. In view of the above, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate court to the aforesaid extent and remanding the matter to the learned appellate court to consider the question with respect to hardship/greater hardship only.
11. In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove, this Court is not assigning further reasons and is not passing reasoned order while remanding the matter to the learned appellate court for the aforesaid purpose. Under the circumstances, the operative portion of the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.10/10/2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned appellate court to consider the question with respect to hardship/greater hardship in light of the subsequent development and acquiring properties by the respective parties. The respective parties to produce relevant documents in support of their case, which they have produced before this Court in Civil Application No. 13320 of 2011 and Civil Application No. 158 of 2012, by way of separate purshis and on the basis of the same, the learned appellate court to consider the question with respect to hardship/greater hardship, more particularly, as to who will suffer hardship hardship/greater hardship if the decree of eviction is passed / not pressed. However, it is made clear and as agreed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the finding given by the learned appellate court with respect to bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and/or her husband is confirmed. However, the learned appellate court is required to consider with respect to hardship/greater hardship only, as stated hereinabove. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the learned appellate court within a period of SIX MONTHS from the date of passing of the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. No costs.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.] rafik Top