[1.0] Present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – original opponent to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad allowing P.S.R.P. Application No.23/2007 filed by the respondents herein. [2.0] Respondents herein submitted an application before the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad under Section 41 of the Presidency Towns Small Cause Rack Rent (hereinafter referred to as “PSCC Act”) claiming the possession of the suit property from the applicant contending interalia that the room in question was given to the applicant as permissive user as a friend and the applicant was to pay Rs.60/ per month as user charges. It was the case on behalf of the applicant that as such the room in question was not given to the applicant as permissive user as a friend but it was given to him on rent at the rate of Rs.60/ per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.90/ per month and thereafter at the rate of Rs.150/ per month. That the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad disbelieved the case on behalf of the applicant that he was tenant of the suit room in question and consequently allowed the said application and directed the applicant to hand over the possession of the suit room in question.
[2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the PSCC Act, the applicant herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC.
[3.0] Shri Bharda, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that as such the learned Judge has committed an error in holding that the applicant was not the tenant of the suit room in question, without framing any issue to that effect. It is submitted that as such it was the specific case on behalf of the applicant from the very beginning that he was the tenant of the suit room in question and therefore, the learned Judge has materially erred in allowing the application under Section 41 of the PSCC Act. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present application.
[4.0] Application is opposed by Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that at the relevant time no grievance was made by the applicant that issue with respect to the tenancy is not framed. It is submitted that considering the defence of the applicant, the learned Judge has considered the same and on appreciation of evidence, it is found that the applicant has failed to prove that he was the tenant of the suit room in question. Therefore, it is submitted that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Small Causes Court which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC.
[5.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length and considered the impugned order and even the material produced on record. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Small Causes Court has specifically negatived the case on behalf of the applicant that he was the tenant of the suit room in question. Nothing is on record to prove that the applicant was the tenant of the suit room in question. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Small Causes Court has specifically observed that the applicant has failed to prove that he was the tenant of the suit room in question and that too at the rate of Rs.60/ per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.90/ per month and thereafter to Rs.150/ per month as alleged by the applicant.
[5.1] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the applicant has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that he was the tenant of the suit room in question, no illegality has been committed by the learned Small Causes Court in allowing the said application and directing the applicant to hand over the possession of the suit room in question, which calls for interference of this Court while exercising powers under Section 115 of the CPC.
[6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R. Shah, J.) menon