CRA/15020/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 150 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 ? ========================================================= STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus RASIKLAL PRAGJIBHAI THAKKER - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PRANAV G DESAI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR MB GANDHI for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.9 of 2003 whereby, the CRA/15020/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 157 of 1993 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that the respondent, original plaintiff, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1993 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surendranagar praying for a declaration that the appellant – Bank was in arrears of rent of Rs.1,60,000/- for the period from 01.06.1992 to 30.09.1993 @ Rs.10,000/- per month and also for the difference of rent @ Rs.1,156.37 per month for the period from 01.12.1992 to 30.09.1993, totaling to Rs.1,71,563.70 and that the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.16,194.37 as rent of the premises, except the strong room. A declaration was also sought that the appellant – Bank is liable to pay rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month for the strong room from 01.06.1992 and that the appellant – Bank is not entitled to charge interest @ 19% p.a. on the additional loan granted to the respondent. 2.1 The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, partly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant – Bank preferred an appeal before the District Court, Surendrangar. The learned appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant Bank. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – Bank, has mainly contented that as per the document at Exhibit – 40, which was executed by the original plaintiff himself, the CRA/15020/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT rent was fixed at Rs.3.25/- per sq. feet / month and therefore, both the Courts below have committed serious error in assessing the rent @ Rs.3.50 per sq. feet / month. He has submitted that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in their true perspective and hence, the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. It is an admitted position that the premise in question was to be rented to the appellant – Bank, after necessary construction is carried out, as per the requirement of the appellant – Bank. The appellant – Bank has produced two rent agreements, entered into between the appellant – Bank and the respondent, vide Exhibits – 79 & 101 respectively. The said two documents were executed by one Mr. Tirmijiya, who happened to be the Chief Manager of the appellant – Bank at the relevant point of time, on behalf of the appellant – Bank and the respondent himself. The said Mr. Tirmijiya was examined before the trial Court as D.W. - 1. 5. On perusal of the said two documents, it appears that in one document, i.e. in the document at Exhibit – 79, the rate of rent has not been stated anywhere and the relevant space has been kept empty, whereas, in the document at Exhibit – 101, the rate of rent has been specifically stated as Rs.3.50 per sq. metre / month, both in figures and words. Both the said documents bear the signature of said Mr. Tirmijiya. It appears from the evidence of said Mr. Tirmijiya that he is an interested witness for the appellant – Bank. Be it may, the documents at Exhibit – 112 and Exhibit – 113, issued by the appellant – Bank, has CRA/15020/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT more evidentiary value than the evidence of said Mr. Tirmijiya as D.W. - 1. 6. Nothing is coming out from the record which may lead this Court to doubt the genuineness of the said two documents. Looking to the documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly decided the rent of the premises, except the strong room, at Rs.3.50 per sq. feet / month. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant – Bank is devoid of any merits. 7. In above view of the matter, I am of the view that both the Courts below were completely justified in passing the impugned judgments. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and therefore, find no reasons to interfere in this revision application. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the revision stands dismissed. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*