CRA/1985/1980 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1985 of 1980 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 ? ========================================================= RAVINDRABHAI PUNAMCHAND - Applicant(s) Versus PARVATIBEN GENAJI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NS SHEVADE for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RN SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1980 passed by the CRA/1985/1980 2/6 JUDGMENT appellate bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1977 whereby, the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1977 passed by the learned Small Cause Judge, Court No. 8, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No. 6370 of 1972 was quashed and set aside. The respondent – original defendant had expired during the pendency of this revision and therefore, her legal heirs were brought on record. 2.0 The facts in brief are as under; 2.1 The petitioner herein had filed H.R.P. Suit No. 6370 of 1972 before the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad against the respondent for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profit, etc. inter alia contenting that the respondent was a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs.18/- and that the respondent was in arrears of rent from 06.11.1970 to 05.09.1971, etc,. In the said suit, the respondent filed her written statement vide Exhibit – 11. The trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. CRA/1985/1980 3/6 JUDGMENT 2.2 Being aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad vide Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1977. The said appeal was allowed by the appellate Bench and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was quashed and set aside. Hence, this revision. 3.0 The matter was listed before this Court [Coram : J. N. Bhatt, J.] on 02.05.1995 and on that day, the following order was passed; “When this matter was called out for hearing today, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is left with no other alternative but to raise its hand in helplessness and to dismiss this matter for default, painfully. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for default. Rule is discharged.” 3.1. Pursuant to the passing of the aforesaid order, an application being M.C.A. No. 668/1996 was preferred for the restoration of the revision application. In the said application, the legal heirs of the respondent were brought on record. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.12.2001, the matter was restored CRA/1985/1980 4/6 JUDGMENT on file. 4.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. In the impugned judgment, the appellate Bench has recorded the finding that the case shall be governed by the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Section 12(3)(b) envisages that no decree for eviction shall be passed in any suit, if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court, the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter, continues to pay or tenders in Court such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. 5.0 Before the trial Court, the respondent had produced the Notice [Exhibit – 45] issued by the father of the petitioner wherein, it has been specifically stated that the respondent is liable to pay Municipal Tax. Thus, it is evident that a part of the rent was not payable every month and therefore, CRA/1985/1980 5/6 JUDGMENT the case would essentially fall u/s. 12(3)(b) of the said Act since the respondent had shown his readiness and willingness to pay the amount of rent and had also deposited the same. Moreover, the statement made by the respondent – original defendant before the trial Court that all the arrears were already cleared was not controverted in her cross-examination. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court was completely justified in quashing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 6.0 Apart from that it may be noted that the finding of the trial Court that Rs.16/- was the rent and Rs.2/- was the Municipal Tax has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thus, the said fact has attained finality. An attempt has been made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by stating that the issue on hand is squarely covered by a decision of this Court. However, no such decision has been produced on record. 7.0 It is well settled that this Court, while exercising powers in revision, has a very limited CRA/1985/1980 6/6 JUDGMENT jurisdiction and cannot appreciate the finding of fact recorded by the Court below. The case is essentially covered under the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the said Act. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the appellate Court in the impugned judgment, more particularly, Paras – 10, 11 & 12 therein and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this revision. 8.0 For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*