CRA/166/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 166 of 2007 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. ========================================================= BHUPATRAI PRATAPBHAI & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus DIWALIBEN WD/O JEHABHAI MOTIBHAI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RA MISHRA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Opponent(s) : 1, MR KV SHELAT for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.3,1.2.4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1.2.2 UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for Opponent(s) : 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this application, the applicant-original plaintiff has CRA/166/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT challenged the judgment and order dated 4/4/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (R) in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 1992 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners instituted Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 1987 on the ground of arrears of rent against the father of the opponents who are jointed as heirs of the deceased tenant as opponents. Said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16/6/1992. against the said judgment of the Trial Court, Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 1992 was filed in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Said Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 1992 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 4/4/2007. Being aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the present petitioners. 3. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is 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. 4. The Trial Court after discussing the matter at length came to the conclusion that suit of the plaintiffs is not under Section 12(3)(a) CRA/166/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief they prayed. The Appellant Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants-original plaintiffs after discussing the evidence produced on record at length. The clear finding of the Appellate Court is that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants have not paid rent for more than six months. It is found that there are no arrears of rent. There is nothing on record to show to take a contrary view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. 5. In the premises, present Civil Revision Application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ila)