( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the original plaintiff who instituted a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 437 of 1982 before the Civil Court, Dholka for getting the decree for possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant-tenant. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed land situated at village Rohika, taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad. The case of the plaintiff further is that it was agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant to construct a hotel over the suit land and they were to run the business of hotel jointly. A partnership deed was executed in this behalf between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, subsequently, the plaintiff was not willing to continue the said business with the defendant and therefore it was decided not to continue the said partnership firm. The defendant thereafter agreed to continue in occupation of the suit premises as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has not paid the rent and, therefore, the plaintiff sent a demand notice demanding the rent from 1. 7. 1987 to 31. 10. 1987, but the same was not complied with by the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the aforesaid suit for getting the decree for possession on the ground of arrears of rent. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has illegally transferred and sublet the suit premises to a third person. Another ground which was pressed into service was requirement of the premises for the personal use and bona fide use of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the aforesaid suit for getting the decree for possession on the aforesaid grounds.

( 2 ) THE defendant resisted the said suit by filing his written statement at exhibit 13. The suit was denied on various grounds. The learned trial judge after recording the evidence and after hearing the advocates for the parties partly allowed the said suit. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for possession but passed a decree regarding arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 69,200 and fixed the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The learned trial Judge granted installment of Rs. 10,000 per month each.

( 3 ) AGAINST the aforesaid decree of the trial Court, the petitioner herein filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1995. So far as the original defendant is concerned, he had also preferred appeal being regular Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1995 challenging order of the trial court in connection with fixation of standard rent and ordering the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. The learned Joint District Judge and Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) decided both the said appeals together and by his common judgment and order dated 24. 09. 2003 dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned appellate Judge by which he has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff being Regular Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1995, the original plaintiff has filed this revision application invoking Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 4 ) THE learend advocate for the petitioner " original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that the appellate Court has committed an error of law in holding that unless the order of the trial Court is improper/ illegal or against propriety, the appellate Court cannot interfere with the said order. In this connection, the observation made by the learned appellate Judge is worth noting. The appellate Court while dealing with the appeal filed by the present petitioner has observed in paragraph 18 as under:-"18 While arguing this appeal on merits it is stated on behalf of the appellant i. e. original plaintiff that the learned trial Judge has not properly concluded the points regarding original defendant is in arrears of rent for more than six months, the legitimate dues from the defendant, suit premises required for personal use bona fidely, and eviction decree to be passe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document