( 1 ) PETITIONER " original plaintiff " His Holiness dr. Saiyadna Mohammed Burhanuddin Saheb Davat Property trusts Sole Trustees General Power of Attorney and general Estate Manager Shaikh Rajabhai Mohammedali is before this Court being aggrieved of dismissal of h. R. P. Suit No. 3177 of 1974 by the learned Judge of the trial Court - Small Causes Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad on 31. 01. 1980 and dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1980 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on 22. 12. 1986.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present proceeding are that the plaintiff " duly registered Public Trust of which person named is the sole trustee and who is having several properties in the city of Ahmedabad one of which is on Naroda Road " a shop bearing Survey No. 488/b/5 consisting of one room was let by the plaintiff to the deceased defendant who had agreed to pay Rs. 9/- as rent, commencing the tenancy month from 1st day of English calendar month. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the tenant did not pay the rent regularly and fell in arrears of 32 months rent from 01. 09. 1971 to 30. 04. 1974; that the trust required the suit premises for the objects of the trust bonafide and reasonably; that the defendant is causing nuisance and annoyance by keeping cots in the margin land along with old motor cars and thus, causing obstruction to the visitors and other tenants; that the defendant was also having dogs and because of such dogs, there has been apprehended danger to the visitors and other tenants. The plaintiff sent notice dated 30. 04. 1974 which was received by the defendant on 03. 05. 1974. By the said notice, the plaintiff had called upon the defendant " tenant to vacate suit premises and also to pay the rent in arrears. The plaintiff had prayed for the decree for possession in respect of the suit premises along with direction to the defendant to pay Rs. 319-50 being the rent for 35 months and the mesne profits of 15 days @ rs. 9/- along with Rs. 20/- as notice charges. Making a total of Rs. 340/ -.

( 3 ) THE deceased " tenant had filed his written statement"exh. 14 and contended that suit notice is not legal; the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata; he did not admit any of the allegations against him in the plaint. The defendant had challenged the reasonableness of rate of rent and pleaded that in 1940, the rate of rent of the suit premises was Rs. 3/- only which was increased gradually to Rs. 5/- then to Rs. 6 then to Rs. 7/- and then to Rs. 9/ -. It was also contended by the defendant"tenant that no rent receipts were given to him. It was also contended by the defendant that the plaintiff wanted under one pretext of the other to get vacated the suit premises and hence, the present suit is filed. It was also contended by the defendant that he was not let out only a room, but was also given right to use otta in front of the room along with margin land.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge of the trial Court was pleased to raise various issues, recorded in paragraph No. 12 of his judgment which were answered by the learned Judge recording his findings in paragraph No. 13. The learned Judge was pleased to pass the following order:"i) Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. ii. Standard rent of the suit premises is fixed at rs. 9/- p. m. iii. Out of the amounts deposited in court in this suit by the defendants, Rs. 909/- be paid to plaintiff for being adjusted against rent dues at the rate of rs. 9/- from 1-9-71 to 31-1-80. Remaining amount be returned to the defendant no. 1/2. iv. Plaintiff to bear his own cost and also to bear the same of the defendant. v. Decree be drawn accordingly. "

( 5 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and order, preferred Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1980 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at ahmedabad. The learned advocate for the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal pressed into service only the question of maintainability of the suit, requirement of the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document