CRA/127/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 127 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= HEMKUVERBEN RANCHODBHAI - Applicant(s) Versus MANGALPURI KRISHNANANDPURI MADRASI DECEASED DURING THE & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AR THACKER for Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7,1.2.8 None for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Gondal, Camp at Jetpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. CRA/127/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 64 of 2000 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jetpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1993 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under; 2.1 The appellants, original plaintiffs, had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 134 of 1993 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jetpur against the respondents, original defendants, for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent for non-user and for transferring and assigning the suit premises in favour of the respondent no. 2. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides and after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellants. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred an appeal before the District Court, Gondal, Campt at Jetpur. The lower appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the appeals. Hence, this revision application. 3.0 Heard learned Advocate for the appellants and perused the documents on record. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the rent CRA/127/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT prevailing at the relevant point of time was not the standard rent as the same was being increased from time to time. From the record, it appears that initially the rent was fixed at Rs.10/-, which was increased, from time to time and lastly, it was fixed at Rs.40/-. Therefore, , as per the Rent Note at Exhibit – 47, the rent of Rs.40/- could be said to be the contractual rent and not the standard rent. 4.0 Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in dismissing the suit of the appellants. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this application. 5.0 For the foregoing reasons, the application is summarily dismissed. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*