Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Bhimjibhai Dodiya vs Sureshbhai Anandrao Kothari on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Aniruddha P. Mayee
C/CRA/313/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 313 of 2022
================================================================
SURESHBHAI BHIMJIBHAI DODIYA
Versus
SURESHBHAI ANANDRAO KOTHARI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR VEDANT D GAIKWAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 04/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant herein is the tenant with respect to the suit
premises and is running a business in the name of
'Ranmukteshwar Iron Works'. The respondent herein is the
owner of the premises. He filed a suit for recovery of possession
of suit premises, mesne profit, declaration and permanent
injunction. The trial Court was pleased to frame seven issues.
The parties led evidence in support of their case. By judgment
and order dated 29th August 2018, the trial Court allowed the
Rent Suit No.75 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-landlord and
directed the defendant-tenant to handover the vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises within a period of thirty
days, failing which, the applicant-tenant shall have to pay
Rs.5,000=00 per month towards the mesne profit till the vacant
and peaceful possession of the suit premises is restored to the
plaintiff-landlord.
C/CRA/313/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2022
2. Aggrieved, the applicant herein (tenant) preferred Regular
Civil Appeal No.296 of 2018. By judgment and order dated 7 th
February 2022, the learned 13th Additional District Judge,
Vadodara, was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Rent Suit
No.75 of 2011.
3. Aggrieved, the applicant herein (tenant) has preferred the
present Civil Revision Application.
4. Heard Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned counsel for the applicant.
He submits that the trial Court has failed to consider that the
plaintiff had not established his bona fide requirement. He
further submit that the present suit premises is the only
business premises of the applicant which is suitable to him and
the need of the son of the applicant could not be taken into
consideration. He further submits that under Section 13(2) of
the Rent Act, the trial Court ought to have satisfied itself with
respect to the issue of greater hardship being caused to the
tenant while the passing of the decree. He submits that the
applicant herein who is carrying on his business and livelihood
from the suit premises since last 30 years would be in greater
hardship than the son of the plaintiff who is yet to commence his
business. Mr.Majmudar further submits that the trial Court,
while awarding the mesne profit, has not taken into
consideration any factor for arriving at the amount of
Rs.5,000=00 per month. Therefore also, the judgment and decree
passed by the courts below are bad in law.
5. A perusal of the judgments and evidence on record reveals
that the applicant Sureshbhai Dodia in his cross-examination
C/CRA/313/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/07/2022
has admitted that his deceased father had purchased four plots,
out of which plot no.3 situated opposite Yamuna Mill is in his
name. He has also further admitted that he owns three
residential premises. Further he states that his two sons have
and carry on their own business. This clear-cut admission on
record have been taken into consideration by the trial Court as
well as the appellate Court in holding that greater hardship
would be caused to the plaintiff-landlord compared to the
applicant herein. Further, in comparison to the applicant-
Sureshbhai, the plaintiff-landlord has brought on record that
his son has not even passed 12-Standard and he requires the
suit premises for setting up business for his son. The said
requirement is bona fide in law. Further, no evidence has been
brought on record by the applicant-tenant that the plaintiff was
having any other suitable premises in his possession which
could be used for the requirement of his son.
6. In view of the concurrent findings and having regard to the
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion
that the plaintiff-landlord has succeeded in proving his
reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for
the occupation of his son and further that no hardship will be
caused to the applicant-tenant if the suit is allowed.
7. No error is committed by the courts below.
8. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference. The Civil
Revision Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
