CRA/1920/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 19 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 ? ========================================================= VASUDEV DHARMADAS JUMANI - Applicant(s) Versus DEVIDAS HOTCHAND RAMCHANDRANI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DC DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, MR CL SONI for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision u/s. 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer & Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Camp : Gondal, Dhoraji in CRA/1920/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1998 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1991 by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Dhoraji was confirmed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent, original plaintiff, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1991 against the petitioner, original defendant, praying for a declaration that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and for possession thereof, in respect of his property situated in Dhoraji City, which was rented vide Rent Note dated 24.07.1979. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court. However, the said appeal also came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. In the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner – tenant has acquired a suitable alternative accommodation. Apart from that the question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the respondent – landlord. Looking to the over all evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent. 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 revision. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. Notice is CRA/1920/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT discharged. Time to vacate the premises in question is extended up to 17.11.2008 on condition that the petitioner will file an Undertaking before this Court within a period of three weeks from today to the effect that he will vacate the premises before the said date and will continue to pay mesne profits regularly till that date. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*