ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. In this Civil Revision Application filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, the defendant – original plaintiff has challenged the judgement, order and decree dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Small Cause (Rent) Suit No. 175 of 2003 as well as the order and decree dated 07.08.2019 passed by the 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 214 of 2018.

3. Facts in brief would indicate that the respondent – original plaintiff filed the suit in question against the present petitioner – original defendant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (for short ‘the Rent Act’) on the ground that there was a change in the user of the rented premises, that the landlord required the premises for bonafide and reasonable use and if there was no vacating of the tenanted premises greater hardship would be caused to the landlord and on the ground of alternative accommodation being available to the tenant.

4. Mr. Parth Pathak, learned advocate for the petitioner – revision applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed a material irregularity inasmuch as there were several grounds on which the judgement and decree was erroneous. He would submit that the suit was barred by resjudicata. He would invite ground (g) of the petition and submit that both suits i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 1977 and the present suit, decree of which is under challenge, were for the same cause and the same issues were framed and therefore the suit was barred by resjudicata. Mr. Pathak would take the Court to the deposition on record to support the submission so made. There was no change of user in support of which Mr. Pathak would draw the attention to the deposition and tax receipts.

5. Mr. Nair, learned advocate for the respondent supported the orders and decree passed by the courts below and submitted that no interference is called for.

6. Perusal of the orders of the trial court as well as appellate court would indicate that on a special issue framed on the question of resjudicata, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the subsequent suit of 2003 could not be barred on the ground of resjudicata if after 21 years circumstances for filing of the suit have changed.

6.1 On the question of user, the trial court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence as discussed in context of issue no. 1 in para 9 of the decision that apart from residing in the suit premises, it was an admitted fact that the application was carrying out business of tailoring and also on the basis of the assessment of tax it was found that there was a provision store where the tenant was selling biscuits etc. Perusing the deposition of the tenant’s wife Hinaben would indicate that there was a provision store run at the tenanted premises.

6.2 On the question of bonafide requirement viz-a-viz the plaintiff's case of the defendant having acquired suitable accommodation, it was found from the deposition of one Pankajbhai Gordhanbhai Rathod that a flat for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- was acquired by the tenant. On the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it was found that the family consisted of 15 persons.

7. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court having extensively discussed the evidence, this Court conscious of its jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act, is not inclined to sit in appeal and re- appreciate the evidence on record when the trial court below having discussed the evidence found that the suit filed by the respondent deserved to be allowed. No reason for causing interference in the orders impugned is made out.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision application is dismissed. However, the records of the revision application indicate that this Court while issuing notice