CAV 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 Act, 1947) against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad City in Civil Appeal No.144 of 2007, whereby it has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court No.7 at Ahmedabad City dated 08.02.2007 in H.R.P. Suit No. 1550 of 2001.

2. The petitioners herein are the original defendants, whereas the respondent herein is the original plaintiff. For sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties shall be referred as per their original position in the suit.

SHORT FACTS:-

3. The respondent - plaintiff instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 1550 of 2001 against the petitioners - defendants, contending, inter alia, that the suit premises situated at Sola Road, 1020 (MIG) Naranpura, Flat No. 54/647, rented to the defendants at a monthly rent of Rs.1500, with municipality tax and electricity consumption charges, etc. It was let out on 07.09.2001 by way of a rent agreement which appears to have been produced at Exhibit-38. As per the condition of the rent agreement, the defendants were not permitted to sublet or transfer the suit premises to any third party in any manner. Since the defendants were trying to transfer the suit premises to a third party, the aforesaid suit came to be filed.

3.1 The defendants have filed their joint written statements and opposed the aforesaid suit. It is a case of the defendants that they are the owners of the suit premises and it was never let out to them by the plaintiff as alleged. According to the defendants, the defendant No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000 from the plaintiff and as a security of the said amount, a rent note was not executed. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner; thus, there is no question of the suit premises being let out on rent to the defendants.

3.2 After the completion of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court, below Exhibit-27, framed the following issues and answered them accordingly: -

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to transfer or assign or sublet the demised premises to the stranger as alleged?

2) Whether the defendants prove that they are the owners of the disputed premises?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit?

4) What order and decree?

Answers:-

1) In the affirmative.

2) In the negative.

3) In the affirmative. 4)As per the order.”

3.3 Since the Trial Court has accepted the case of the plaintiff and disbelieved the defendants, who failed to prove their ownership over the suit premises, accordingly, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As per the decree, the defendants are permanently restrained from transferring, assigning, or by leave and license the possession of the suit premises to any third party.

3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decree, the defendants approached the Appellate Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2007. The Appellate Court appears to have framed the following points for determination and answered them accordingly.

“POINTS

1. Whether the learned trial judge has erred to come to conclusion that defendant is not a landlord of the suit premises and plaintiff is a landlord of the suit premises ?

2. Whether learned trial judge erred in granting the permanent injunction to plaintiff as prayed by him in H.R.P. Suit No.1550/2001?

3.What order?

Our findings for the above points are as under

1.In the negative.

2.In the negative.

3.As per Order.”

3.5 After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court has also found that the defendants failed to prove their ownership over the suit premises; rather, it believed that the plaintiff is the landlord as per Section 5(3) of the Act, 1947. It was further held that as per the provisions of the Act, 1947, the Rent Court not requires to decide the title of o