CRA/1081/1989 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1081 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= RIDHALAL MARSINH YADAV Versus YASIN MEHBOOB ALI & ANR. ========================================================= Appearance : MS SUDHA R GANGWAR for Applicant(s) : 1,MRS MC THAKKER for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, MR IM BENGALI for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 MR NEHAL R JOSHI for Opponent(s) : 1.2.5 RULE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 17/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Revision Application is filed by the CRA/1081/1989 2/8 JUDGMENT petitioner – original defendant No.2 under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 05.08.1988 in Regular Civil suit No.185 of 1984 confirmed by the learned Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur vide judgment and order dated 24.02.1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 1988. 2. Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 1984 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Gandhinagar against the petitioner herein – original defendant No.2 and another for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to obstruct and interrupt possession of the suit shop which is with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of shop No.2, Shopping Center, Sector – 23, Gandhinagar as tenant of defendants. The plaintiff is running flour mill in the suit shop in the name of 'Krishna Flour Factory'. The plaintiff claimed that he is tenant of the suit shop since March, 1972 on monthly rent of Rs.310/. He used to pay the rent monthly to CRA/1081/1989 3/8 JUDGMENT defendant No.1 but defendant No.1 was not issuing rent receipts to him. He has also sent money orders in the month of September and October, 1984 at the rate of Rs.310/- which was refused. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants have threatened him to vacate the suit premises, therefore, he filed the aforesaid suit for getting ad-interim relief for protection of possession of suit shop. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the suit and resisted by filing written statement at Exh.13. It was the case on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff was never tenant of the suit shop but he was servant for running a flour mill only. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues were raised by the learned trial Court at Exh.37. After recording evidence of both the parties the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved that he is tenant of the suit premises and the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff is paid servant of the said shop and ultimately decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants of their alienates, servant not to obstruct or interrupt the possession of the suit shop which is with the CRA/1081/1989 4/8 JUDGMENT plaintiff. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 1984, only defendant No.2 preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1988 and the learned Joint District Judge, Gandinagar vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.1989 dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court dated 24.02.1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1988 in dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D.), Gandhinagar in Regular Civil Suit No.185 of 1984, the petitioner – original defendant No.2 has preferred present Revision Application purported to be under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. 4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that both the Courts' below have materially erred in holding original plaintiff as tenant. It is submitted that CRA/1081/1989 5/8 JUDGMENT infact the plaintiff was paid servant to run flour mill only and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It is submitted that both the Courts' below ought to have appreciated the fact that since a false complaint was filed against the defendants, the plaintiff approached the defendants for the purpose of getting him enlarged on bail and at that time signatures have been obtained by the plaintiff as well as his advocate in blank paper for making necessary applications for bail and those papers have been subsequently been illegally used for false rent notes and even criminal proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Revision Application. 5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – original plaintiff has tried to support the orders passed by the both the Courts' below on hand. It is submitted that as such present Revision Application under Section 29 of the Act is not maintainable as the suit was filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act only for declaration and permanent injunction. Therefore, CRA/1081/1989 6/8 JUDGMENT present Revision Application under Section 29 of the Act is not maintainable. Making above submission, it is requested to dismiss the present Revision Application. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 7. Both the Courts' below have concurrently on appreciation of evidence found original plaintiff to be tenant of the suit shop and have negatived the contention on behalf of the original defendants that the plaintiff was paid servant to run the flour mill. This being Revision Application, the scope in the Revision Application against the concurrent findings is very limited and unless findings are found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, interference of this Court is not warranted. On considering the record and proceedings and relevant evidence and findings given by the both the Courts' below, it cannot be alleged to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, said findings are not required to be interfered with in Revision Application. It is also CRA/1081/1989 7/8 JUDGMENT required to be noted that present Revision Application is purported to be under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act and as such suit was filed in the Civil Court for declaration and permanent injunction against which Regular Civil Appeal was filed which came to be dismissed and therefore, present Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act is not maintainable. Even otherwise considering the facts and circumstances narrated herein above and considering the case on merits also, this Court is of the opinion that impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts' below are not required to be interfered with in the present Revision Application assuming that same is not maintainable. 8. For the reasons stated above, present Revision Application fails and requires to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish CRA/1081/1989 8/8 JUDGMENT