JUDGMENT :- This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar, in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1964, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhavnagar in Civil Suit No. 55 of 1962.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 55 of 1962 in the Court of the Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhavnagar, for recovery of possession of the suit godown from the appellant-defendant, on the ground that the suit premises are in old and dilapidated condition and they are required to be demolished and to construct a new building on the same. They required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for renovation, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.

3. It was their case that the disputed building was absolutely in a dilapidated condition and most of the part of the building had fallen down and there was every possibility that the walls of it might fall down and as such, they had received notices from the municipality calling upon them to pull down the suit building as the same was likely to fall down. On receipt of the notices, they had approached the defendant and the defendant had agreed to vacate the same and other tenants did vacate the other portions of the building in question, of which they were tenants. The defendant ultimately did not keep up his promise and hence they had to file a suit against him for eviction on the aforesaid ground.

4. The defendant by his written statement, Ex. 12, contended inter alia that the plaintiffs have made out this ground only to harass him and to take possession from him. To enable them to get possession, the plaintiffs themselves had got demolished the back side wall. The suit premises were not in old and dilapidated condition and they did not require them reasonably and bona fide to renovate the same.

5. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion on appreciation of evidence that the plaintiffs-respondents required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for renovation. It is significant to note that even the municipality had given notices to the effect that the premises were in a dilapidated condition and they were likely to fall down and thereby endanger the safety of the public. Both the Courts below even inspected the site as a challenge was made on behalf of the defendant about such condition of the suit premises. On evidence, the two Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for renovation, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. That finding is not shown to be erroneous in law. There is reliable evidence to support that finding. That finding is a finding of fact and it cannot be assailed in the second appeal.

6. Mr. Parghi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-defendant, submitted that such demolition and reconstruction would not be included within the meaning of the word "renovation". This question has been concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Maganlal Shivlal v. Memon Daudbhai Mithabhai, (1969) 10 Guj LR 336. It has been observed therein :

"Then term 'renovation' in Section 13 (1) (h) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act would include the demolition of an existing building and re-construction of the building on the same site. Whenever thing or a part of a thing is worn out and a new thing is replaced in its place, such replacement of a new thing amounts to repair of the thing. The term 'renovation' as seen from the meanings given in the dictionaries includes the making of repairs and also includes the act of making or creating a new thing but the term 'repair' would not include the meaning of creating or making of a new thing. In so far as the original building is kept as it is and portions of it are restored to good condition or such portions as are worn out or broken or damage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document