CRA/13620/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 136 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 ? ========================================================= SURIYAKANT BHIKHALAL HAKANI & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus PRAVEEN CHANDRA VIRJLAL KHANDHERIYA - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PC KAVINA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR SURESH M SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 21/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2005 passed by the learned Jt. District & Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1992 CRA/13620/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 11.06.1990 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Rajkot in Rent Suit No.75 of 1984 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that the respondent no. 1 [deceased], original plaintiff, filed a suit being Rent Suit No.75 of 1984 against the petitioners, original defendants, for the recovery of an amount of Rs.6550/- towards the arrears of rent and to get vacant and peaceful possession of the property bearing Bungalow No. 64 situated in Malaviyanagar area of Rajkot City. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent, original plaintiff. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Court. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. After appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the Court below has come to the conclusion that the respondent, original plaintiff, was in genuine need of the suit premises. In my opinion, the Court below has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiff as she was in bona fide need of the suit premise and she would suffer greater hardship, if the same was not granted to her. 4. Apart from that it also appears from the record that the petitioner, original defendants, had not made any attempts, much less any serious CRA/13620/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT attempts to say so, to search for any alternative premise for their accommodation. 5. Thus, looking to the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind the fact that the original plaintiff was not keeping good-health, at the relevant point of time, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in decreeing the suit in her favour. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this revision. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. Time to vacate the suit premise is granted up to 31.08.2009 on condition that the petitioners will file an Undertaking before this Court, within a period of three weeks from today, to the effect that they will vacate the suit premise before 31.08.2009 and that they will continue to pay mesne profits regularly till the said date. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*