Gujarat High Court
Maltiben @ Muktaben Bachubhai Vyas vs Kishor Kantilal Bhuva-Legal Heir And ... on 6 August, 2015
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
C/CRA/38/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 of 2015
================================================================
MALTIBEN @ MUKTABEN BACHUBHAI VYAS....Applicant(s)
Versus
KISHOR KANTILAL BHUVA-LEGAL HEIR AND REP. AND EXECUTOR OF
WILL OF DECD. & 9....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK N MAPARA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s) No. 7
MR AMIT V THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 4 , 6 , 8 - 9
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s) No. 3 , 5 , 10
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 06/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner is original defendant No.2. Regular Civil Suit No.254 of 1988 was filed by the respondent No.1 seeking eviction of the suit premises. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 was the tenant of the suit property, which was a residential unit. The tenant created unauthorized sub-tenancy inducting defendant No.2 as sub-tenant. On the grounds of arrears of rent and sub-tenancy, the suit for eviction was filed. The Courts below upheld both contentions of the plaintiff and granted eviction decree. It was held that the case was Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 07 02:15:40 IST 2015 C/CRA/38/2015 ORDER covered under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. That despite notice for payment of arrears of rent in excess of 6 months, the defendant had not paid the rent within the statutory period. It was also held that the tenant had inducted sub-tenant without authority of the landlord.
2. Before the Courts below, the present petitioner had taken a stand that she was not the sub-tenant. Her mother Laxmiben was the tenant. After her death, since she was residing with Laxmiben in the same premises, she continued as a tenant. The landlord had devised a modus by which he would not issue rent notes in favour of the real tenants. She cited further instances to establish this stand.
3. However, both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving the case of sub-tenancy. The evidence of the defendants was not believed. Her stand that she was occupying the suit premises since more than 40 years was not accepted. It was noted that all the materials relied upon by the defendant was for the period after filing of the suit. IT was noted that in other cases wherever the instances of sub-tenancy were cited, the landlord had taken steps for eviction. In some cases, the suits were allowed and in some other cases, the suits were compromised. Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 07 02:15:40 IST 2015 C/CRA/38/2015 ORDER
4. When two Courts below have concurrently come to conclusion that on the ground of arrears of rent and unauthorized sub-tenancy, decree of eviction is required to be issued, in absence of any perversity in such findings, I see no reason to interfere. It is well known that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision petition under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is limited and cannot be enlarged to that of an appellate Court. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would lime to approach further remedy. In the meantime, the landlord has filed Execution Petition. Till 30.09.2015, the petitioner shall not be evicted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) SHITOLE Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Aug 07 02:15:40 IST 2015