The main legal point established in the judgment is the difficulty in proving valuable consideration for sub-letting and the requirement of reasonable and bona fide need for possession under Section 13(1)(i) of the Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”) against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2003 passed by Court of 2nd Joint District Judge, Banaskantha at Deesa in Regular Civil Appeal No.54 of 1995 confirming the judgment and order dated 29.11.1995 passed by Civil Judge, (J.D.), Deesa in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1984.

2. In the judgment, the parties will be referred as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1984 against the defendant nos.1 and 2 for possession of the suit premises and for recovery of Rs.1,038/- towards the arrears of rent and mesne profits on the grounds of - (i) arrears of rent for 06 (six) months; (ii) sub-letting and (iii) reasonable and bona fide requirement.

3.1. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence - both oral as well as documentary, dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1984 by judgment, order and decree dated 29.11.1995. The same was challenged by the plaintiff by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.54 of 1995, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 16.10.2003.

4. Mr.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that both the Courts below have fallen in error in appreciating the evidence on record and ignoring the same. It is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(i) of the Rent Act.

5. Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the plaintiff has submitted that the findings of both the Courts below with regard to the provision of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act, which pertain to claim of possession of the suit property on the ground of sub-letting are against the law.

5.1. It is submitted that the evidence of panchnama below Exh.102 with regard to the suit property and the photographs below Exh.105 to Exh.108 have been discarded by the Trial Court, merely by observing that the same would not be enough to prove that the defendant no.1 has sublet the defendant no.2 in the open plot of land.

5.2. It is submitted that the Trial Court has fallen in error by observing that since the plaintiff is affluent person and the defendant no.1 is an ordinary person hence, the defendant no.1 would not have enough courage to allow the defendant no.2 to enter in the plot of land. It is submitted that the panchnama is proved by one of the panchas, who has been examined, however, the evidence in this regard is totally ignored.

5.3. Learned advocate Mr.Shah has further pointed out the observations made by the Appellate Court in this regard and the issue of sub-letting is not believed merely on the reason that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the defendant no.1 has sub-let the plot of land to defendant no.2 on some valuable consideration. It is submitted that the plaintiff is only required to prove that the suit property is being used by someone else other than to whom it was given on rent and the factum of valuable consideration is of no consequences. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jivanbhai Trikambhai vs. Chaturbhai Fakirbhai, 2013 JX (Guj) 771 and in the case of Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1998) 3 S.C.C. 1.

5.4. There is another issue raised by learned advocate Mr.Shah with regard to the provisions of Section 13(1)(i) of the Rent Act, which pertains to the possession of the open plot of land. Learned advocate Mr.Shah has submitted that in fact, the plaintiff needed the aforesaid open plot of land for the purpose of construction and accordingly, he had obtained the development permission below Exh.73, the plan was also approved below Exh.74 and the details of the bank were also provided at Exh.75 and Exh.76. Thus, he has submitted that all the requirements i.e. plans, finance or means of construction