CRA/155/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 155 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= MANSURALI S ARTIST - Applicant(s) Versus DAVAT PROPERTY TRUST - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS TEJAL K SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, MR DP KINARIWALA for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this application, the applicant-original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and order of the Trail Court dated CRA/155/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 28/3/2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.672 of 2000 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that tenant and landlord relationship could not be established, which was confirmed by the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court vide order dated 25/7/2008 in Civil Appeal No.199 of 2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that defendant trust is a public registered trust bearing Registration No.B-189 and the said trust is owner of the suit property bearing MC No.1264-A-29 and Survey 488-B-29-5 and the plaintiff is tenant of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.52/- plus taxes to be borne by the plaintiff tenant. According to the plaintiff, he was paying rent regularly to the defendant and was residing in the suit premises; that in the suit premises previously one Gulam Abbas Modasawala was residing and at that time the plaintiff was residing in another premises and when Gulam Abbas Modasawala vacated said premises on dated 15/10/1987 said premises was allotted to him; that the plaintiff was paying rent regularly and the plaintiff was also doing help in the works of the defendant trust. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant has disconnected facilities of water supply and drainage facilities existing in the suit premises and the defendant is trying evict the plaintiff from the suit premises forcibly. The plaintiff has therefore, filed the aforesaid suit praying that the plaintiff be declared as lawful tenant of the suit premises. The said suit was CRA/155/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT dismissed by the Trial Court as stated above. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, original plaintiff has preferred appeal being Appeal No.199 of 2008 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 25/7/2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision application by the present petitioner- original plaintiff. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below are illegal, erroneous, null and void which requires to be quashed and set aside in as much as the plaintiff-petitioner was a tenant for a period of thirteen years and there are documentary evidence to show the said fact which was not considered by the Courts below. 5. The finding of the Court below is that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has paid rent to the defendant. The further finding is that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff had paid rent to the defendant. In short the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is tenant of the premises. There is nothing on record to take a contrary view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with CRA/155/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. 6. In the premises, present Civil Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. If an undertaking is filed by the present petitioner within a period of one month from today that he will not harass or cause any inconvenience to the Trust and the Trustees or any connected person in any manner whatsoever, time to vacate the premises is granted up to 31/8/2010. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ila)