CRA/177/1998 of HARANKUMAR DAMODARDAS MEHTA Vs MAHENDRABHAI AMBALAL SHAH on 27 November 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 177 of 1998

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO

to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO

of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

-------------------------------------------------------------- HARANKUMAR DAMODARDAS MEHTA

Versus

MAHENDRABHAI AMBALAL SHAH

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:

MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner Nos. 1-2

MR MEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner No. 1-2

MR GIRISH D BHATT for Respondent No. 1

SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent No. 2

-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR

Date of decision: 27/11/2002

ORAL JUDGEMENT

The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs. They instituted a civil suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 1982, against the tenant, i.e.

respondent No.1 herein, as well as against the so-called sub-tenant, respondent No.2 herein. The said suit was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement as well as on the ground of sub-letting. The allegation about sub-letting is to the effect that respondent No.1, being the original lessee of the premises, has sub-let the premises to respondent No.2, who was serving as the Compounder. The trial court dismissed the suit on both the grounds. The trial court did not believe the bona fide requirement. The trial court also came to the conclusion that there is no sub-letting by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2.

The petitioners, thereafter, carried the matter to the appellate court by way of Civil Appeal No.19 of 1993. The appeal was also dismissed, against which this revision application is filed by the petitioners.

At the time of hearing this revision application, the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 have submitted consent terms signed by the respective parties. Since both the Courts below have found that the respondent No.1 has not sub-let the suit premises and that he has retained the possession with him, Mr.Shah for the petitioners seeks leave to delete respondent No.2, as he is only a formal party, since the finding is that respondent No.1 is in exclusive possession of the suit premises, and that he has not transferred the suit premises to respondent No.2. It is also submitted by Mr.Shah that the alleged sub-tenant is not a necessary party in a suit for possession against the head tenant. Accordingly, leave to delete respondent No.2 is granted.

During the course of the hearing of the Civil Revision Application, it is argued by petitioners that, at present, the need and requirement of the plaintiffs is genuine and bona fide and that considering the family members of the plaintiffs' family, they badly require the suit premises for the purpose of their residence.

Considering the aforesaid aspect of requirement of plaintiffs as well as considering the aspect of hardship also, it is submitted by both the sides that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if the suit for possession is not decreed, and that, at present, the respondent No.1 is able to acquire alternative premises for a reasonable rent.

In view of the aforesaid aspects, the aforesaid Pursis is submitted before the Court. Even the aforesaid aspect about requirement of the plaintiffs is also reflected in the consent Pursis. Petitioner No.1 is present in the Court and respondent No.1, original tenant of the suit premises, is also present in the Court, and all of them have accepted the consent terms.

In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Revision Application is disposed of in view of the aforesaid consent terms. In view of the consent terms, Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 1982, is decreed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, as the ground for passing decree exists in favour of the original plaintiffs. As per the consent Pursis, respondent No.1 is granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 15th January, 2003, as mentioned in the consent terms, which is taken on record.

The Revision Applicaiton is accordingly disposed of in view of the said consent terms. Rule is accordingly disposed of in view of the aforesaid consent terms, with no order as to costs.

27th November, 2002��( P.B. Majmudar, J. )

***

(apj)