CRA/97/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 97 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. ========================================================= BHUPATRAI PRATAPRAI THAKKAR - Applicant(s) Versus DIWALIBEN WD/O JEHABHAI MOTIBHAI - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RA MISHRA for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, MR KV SHELAT for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 ========================================================= 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 dated 4/4/2007 passed by CRA/97/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (R) in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2003 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.70 of 1993 on the ground of bonafide requirement, alternate accommodation acquired by the opponents and change of user against the father of the opponents who are joined as heirs of the deceased tenant as opponents. Said suit was dismissed by the Hon'ble Trial Court by judgment and order dated 13/10/2003. Against the said judgment and order, Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2003 was filed in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Said appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge by order dated 4/4/2007. Being aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the present petitioner. 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 dismissed the suit. The Appellant Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-original plaintiff after discussing CRA/97/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT the evidence produced on record at length. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, the clear finding of the Courts below is that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required. The Courts below has also found that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendants have acquired suitable residential accommodation. There is nothing on record of this application to take a contrary view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings of both the Courts. Nothing is pointed out to take a different view of the matter. 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)