Back
2002 Supreme(Guj) 651
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.H.MEHTA
BABUBHAI H.KANADA - Appellant
Versus
NATWARLAL CHANDARANA - Respondent
C.A. 2665 of 2002
Decided On : 09/04/2002
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code -Section 114 -Limitation Act -Section 5 -Petitioners and opponent Nos. 2 and 3 being tenants were the original defendants in original Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 before the trial Court. The opponent No. 1 being Landlord was a plaintiff in the said suit. [the parties before this Court will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants respectively The plaintiff filed one Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 in the Small Causes Court, , against the defendants for decree of eviction and also to recover the physical possession of the suit premises along with a prayer for money decree to recover Rs. 2,697. 64 paisa [rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven and Sixty Four Paisa] from the defendants, that suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 2. 1 thereafter, , defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1984 against that judgment and decree to the Court of District Judge that appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. 2. 2 thereafter, on or about 06/04/1988, defendants preferred Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 challenging the judgment and decree of the District Court, Rajkot, to this Court. That Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 came to be dismissed by this Court, defendants have preferred Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001 for review of the judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988. The defendants sat silent for getting that Review Application further prosecuted., the defendants have preferred this present application with a request to condone the delay of 440 days by giving a retrospective effect for filing the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001. facts leading to this present condonation application are necessary to be stated for taking a judicial decision on the point involved in this application. 3. 1 the opponent No. 1 being original plaintiff is an owner of building. During the Course of hearing, the learned advocate for the opponent No. 1/original plaintiff filed an application for production of two documents. After hearing the learned advocates for both the parties, this Court granted a leave to opponent No. 1 to rely and refer upon the said two documents produced along with the application -Held applicants have no slightest favourable or good case in proposed review petition. Under the circumstances, the present delay application is devoid of merits because the causes shown in para-3 of this application are not sufficient causes for condoning the delay. Looking to the lethargy of applicants for prosecuting proposed review petition further in accordance with law and inaction on the part of the applicants for filing the delay application after about five months show the absence of bona fides on the part of applicants. The conduct of all the applicants are required to be considered and taken into account because these are the applicants, who have not yet handed over the possession of the suit premises to the opponent No. 1/plaintiff/landlord, though they have given an undertaking to this Court to vacate the suit premises the result, this present delay condonation application, 1963, which is devoid of merits is required to be dismissed with costs and accordingly it is dismissed with a direction to the applicants that they shall pay Rs. 10,000-00 [rupees Ten Thousand Only] as costs to the opponent No. 1/plaintiff/landlord, within two months, from the date of this order. Notice discharged -Petition is Dismissed.
( 1 ) THE original revision petitioners of Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 decided by this Court, have by preferring this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requested this Court to condone the delay of 440 days for filing a proposed Review Petition under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Order, 47, Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code, being Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001.
( 2 ) THE present petitioners and opponent Nos. 2 and 3 being tenants were the original defendants in original Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 before the trial Court. The opponent No. 1 being Landlord was a plaintiff in the said suit. [the parties before this Court will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants respectively hereinafter for the sake of convenience]. The plaintiff filed one Regular Civil Suit [rent Suit] No. 345 of 1981 in the Small Causes Court, at Rajkot on 16/12/1981, against the defendants for decree of eviction and also to recover the physical possession of the suit premises along with a prayer for money decree to recover Rs. 2,697. 64 paisa [rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven and Sixty Four Paisa] from the defendants. On 31/12/1983, that suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 2. 1 thereafter, on 15/12/1984, defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1984 against that judgment and decree to the Court of District Judge, Rajkot. On 03/03/1988, that appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. 2. 2 thereafter, on or about 06/04/1988, defendants preferred Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 challenging the judgment and decree of the District Court, Rajkot, to this Court. That Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988 came to be dismissed by this Court on 04/07/2000. On or about 05/01/2002, defendants have preferred Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001 dated 17/10/2001 for review of the judgment dated 04/07/2000 rendered by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 348 of 1988. The defendants sat silent for getting that Review Application further prosecuted till 10/03/2002. On 27/03/2002, the defendants have preferred this present application dated 11/03/2002 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a request to condone the delay of 440 days by giving a retrospective effect for filing the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application [stamp] No. 2140 of 2001.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to this present condonation application are necessary to be stated for taking a judicial decision on the point involved in this application. 3. 1 the opponent No. 1 being original plaintiff is an owner of building known as "sarasvati Bhuvan", situated on Plot No. 44, in Municipal Employee Co-operative Housing Society, on Kishanpara Main Road, at Rajkot. The said building is consisting of ground floor and first floor. The suit premises, which are in possession of the applicants and opponent Nos. 2 and 3 as tenants are on first floor. The suit premises, which are on the first floor of the said building, are consisting of one room, kitchen, Osari and a Ravesh [balkony]. The said suit premises were reasonably and bonafide required by the plaintiff. The defendants were tenants-in-arrears of rent for more than six months and they neglected to pay the said arrears of rent. Therefore, the plaintiff, after terminating the tenancy by addressing a notice dated 03/09/1981, filed aforesaid Rent Suit No. 345 of 1981 in the Small Causes Court, at Rajkot on 16/12/1981 for a decree of eviction and also for a money decree to recover Rs. 2,697. 64 from the defendants mainly on following two grounds ;[a] The plaintiffs case falls under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [for short the "rent Act"] read with Section 13 (2) of the Rent Act. [b] The plaintiffs case also falls under Section 12 (3) (a) of
