KRISHNA GURUDAYAL SHARMA Vs. HANSRAJ JIWANDAS
LAWS(GJH)-1961-1-10
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 11,1961

KRISHNA GURUDAYAL SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
HANSRAJ JIWANDAS AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents as plaintiffs against the appellant as defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajkot for ejecting the appellant from certain premises belonging to the respondents and for recovering arrears of rent in respect of the premises. The respondents are trustees of a trust called the Rajkot Lohana Boarding House and as such trustees the respondents own various immovable properties one of which is known as Sitaram Blocks. This immovable property known as Sitaram Blocks was constructed sometime in 1945 and was immediately after construction let out to the tenants. The appellant has been a tenant of Rooms Nos. 13 and 14 on the first floor and Shops Nos. 2 5 and 6 on the ground floor of this immovable property since about 1945-1946. At the time when this immovable property was constructed the number of students who required accommodation in the boarding house of the trust was small and this immovable properly was therefore not required for the purpose of housing the students and was therefore let out to the tenants. In course of time the number of students gradually increased and the respondents as trustee of the trust around that it was necessary to have more accommodation for the purpose of housing appellant with a notice to quit the premises in the occupation of the appellant. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the appellant was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay rent in respect of the premises from 1 June 1954. Though the tenancy of the applicant was terminated by a notice to quit given by the respondents the appellant refused to vacate the premises and the respondents were therefore obliged to file the present suit against the appellant for obtaining possession to the premises and recovering arrears of rent and electric charges amounting to Rs. 772-12-6. It was stated by the respondents in the plaint that the premises were exempted from the operation of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to by me as the Act) and that the premises were required for the bona fide use and occupation for the purpose of housing the students. The exemption from the operation of the Act was claimed by the respondents in respect of the premises on the basis of a notification dated 27th December 1954 issued by the Government under Section 4(3) of the Act and a certificate from the Government that the premises fulfilled the terms and conditions laid down in the notification. It was also stated in the plaint that the appellant was in arrears of rent from 1st June 1954 and had also failed to pay the electric charges in respect of the premises. On these grounds the respondents claimed to recover possession of the premises from the appellant. The appellant raised several contentions in his written statement. One of the contentions was that the premises were not exempted from the operation of the Act and it was also in any events contended that the premises were not required for the bona fide use and occupation for the purposes for which they were meant It. The appellant contended that the respondents were not entitled to recover possession of the premises and urged that the suit should be dismissed with costs.
(2.)The learned Judge who tried the suit held that the premises were exempted from the operation of the Act and that they were required for the bona use and occupation for the purpose of accommodating the growing number of students. The learned trial judge also held that the appellant had not paid rent from 1st June 1954 upto the date of the suit and that the appellant was also in arrears of electric charges to the extent of Rs. 25/-. The learned trial Judge accordingly passed a decree for eviction against appellant in so far as Rooms Nos. 13 and 14 on the first floor of the Sitaram Blocks were concerned. But so far as Shops Nos. 2 5 and 6 on the ground floor were concerned the learned trial Judge held that these shops were not fit in their present condition to house the students all that the respondents would have sufficient accommodation for the students even without obtaining possession of these shops and that great hardship would be caused to the appellant if decree for eviction was passed against the appellant also in respect of these shops and he accordingly refused to pass a decree for eviction against the appellant in respect of these shops. So far as the arrears of rent and electric charges were concerned the trial Judge passed a decree for Rs. 772-12-6 against the appellant.
(3.)The appellant appealed against the decree passed by the learned trial Judge but the appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned District Judge Madhya Saurashtra Rajkot The learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the learned trial Judge and held that there was no sufficient ground for interference with the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. It is against this decree passed by the learned District Judge that the appellant has filed the present Second Appeal in this Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.