Velabai vs Hiraben and Others

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present revision application has been filed u/s 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act r/w Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the original Plaintiffs landlords preferred H.R.P. Suit No. 4832/82 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad for possession on various grounds including the ground of Section 12(3)(a) as well as Section 13(1)(k) regarding non-user. The Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 30.1.1989 decreed the suit on appreciation of evidence and Defendant No. 1-Petitioner herein was directed to hand over possession. Regular Civil Appeal No. 51/89 came to be preferred before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by the Petitioner herein, original Defendant No. 1 (tenant). The said appeal came to be disposed of by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court vide judgment and order dated 15.7.1997 confirming the order passed by the trial court observing that the Petitioner, original Defendant No. 1 had not used the premises for more than six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit without any reasonable cause and the evidence has been found to that effect. It is also observed that there is no reason to disturb the findings given by the trial Judge in respect of Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act and there is a discussion based on the evidence with regard to other aspects which have been confirmed by the Appellate Bench.

Though learned Counsel Mr. Gandhi appearing for the Petitioner has made an effort to submit referring to the judgment of both the courts below that they have failed to appreciate with regard to non-user, he submitted that both the courts have misdirected considering the case u/s 13(1)(k). He submitted that if it was a case of sub-letting, then the question of non-user would not arise and both the courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. He has also referred to the judgments and submitted that the documentary evidence is also not appreciated. He submitted that the evidence of Yogeshbhai that somebody else is using the premises is accepted. Even in that case, it would be a case of subletting and not non-user and therefore this evidence has not been appreciated properly. He submitted that even with regard to non-user, both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the small room was occupied and used by Bhagyoday Cotton Company and it cannot be said that there is any non-user. He submitted that there was an agency for which business was carried on.

Though the submissions have been made, in view of the clear findings on the issues raised including the non-user which has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court which has been discussed in detail, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact given by both the courts below with detailed discussion about the evidence. Therefore, without any further elaboration, considering the fact that the concurrent findings are given on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or resulting into miscarriage of justice, the present revision application cannot be entertained.

It is well-accepted that the scope of exercise of revision jurisdiction is very limited. The concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse or illegal resulting in any kind of irregularity or miscarriage of justice and therefore the present revision application deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.