Rajendrabhai Maganbhai Kansara vs Darji Jashodaben Navnitlal
2021 Latest Caselaw 6978 Guj

     C/CRA/131/2021                               ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 of 2021

==========================================================
                      RAJENDRABHAI MAGANBHAI KANSARA
                                    Versus
                         DARJI JASHODABEN NAVNITLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR JAGDISH M SHAH(2454) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                              Date : 25/06/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for the petitioner- tenant and learned advocate Mr. Jagdish Shah for the respondent on caveat.

2. This Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is directed against dismissal of the Civil Appeal No.19 of 2019 preferred by the petitioner Tenant, which was against the decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court.

3. The suit was instituted on the twin grounds of arrears of rent and causing nuisance. While the Trial Court decreed the suit, on both the counts, to order eviction of the petitioner the lower appellate Court sustained eviction decree on the ground of arrears of rent.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that Courts below have committed error in interpreting Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. It was submitted that the decisions of the Supreme

C/CRA/131/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

Court in Mranalini B. Shah Vs.Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, (AIR 1980 SC 954) and in Mohan Laxman Hede Vs. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh, (AIR 1988 SC 1111) have been relied on by the Courts. It was submitted that they are the decisions post-amendment which are not applicable. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the clockwise regularity is not intended in making payment of rent. It was submitted that the applicant - tenant has regularly deposited the rent before the trial Court.

4.1 Learned advocate appearing on caveat on the other hand strongly supported the judgment and decree to submit that the tenant was not regularly paying the rent. He submitted that the Revision Application may not be entertained.

5. Since the questions relating to law and the interpretation of section 12(3)(b) of the Act arise for consideration, the Revision Application is required to be heard finally.

6. Rule, returnable on 14th September, 2021.

7. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the applicant shall not be evicted from the premises in question, which is a shop. It is also directed that the applicant also shall not transfer the premises in any from and shall not create any interest or encumbrance thereon.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI