CAV JUDGMENT

1.The applicants have approached this Court assailing the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad Court No. 2 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2000 dated 30.11.2005 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court on 8.11.2000 ordering the appellants to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs.

2.Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.

3.The original plaintiffs filed H.R.P.Suit No. 146 of 1990 against the defendants tenants for recovering arrears of rent and vacant possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff had rented the suit premises to the defendant at monthly rent of Rs.400/- and rent was not inclusive of municipal tax, education cess and electricity burning charges. These expenses were to be borne by the defendant tenants. The Landlord and Tenant are herein after referred to plaintiff and defendant respectively for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff contend that defendant tenant had paid rent up to 31.12.1981 and thereafter, from 1.1.1982 to 31.10.1989 for 94 months, rent had not been paid, which come to Rs.37,600/- and against that, defendants had deposited only Rs.18,000/- in the Court. Thus RS. 19,600/- remained due from the defendants as well as municipal tax and education cess from

1981-82 to 1988-89, which comes to Rs.9747-90.

4.It was further contended by the plaintiffs that defendants made an application for Standard Rent being Application No. 2013 of 1982, so on that basis the rent from 1.1.1982 to 31.10.1989 for 94 months comes to Rs.21,150/- as Rs./225 standard rent was fixed per month and as against that, the defendant had paid only Rs.18,000/- as it is stated hereinabove, and therefore, on this count also it could be said that the defendant had not paid the rent. It was further contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff No. 3 was deserted and divorced by her husband and therefore, under that compelling situation, she bona fide needs the suit premises for her personal usage. The plaintiff also urged that conduct of the defendant amount to nuisance and it caused annoyance to the plaintiff as well as the adjourning occupiers and therefore, the defendant and his family members were required to be ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff issued notice on 1.10.1981 through his advocate demanding arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises. The defendants did not comply with the demand of the notice and gave evasive replies. The plaintiff therefore was constrained to file suit.

5.The defendants took up various contentions resisting the suit. The trial Court framed as many as 12 issues and after assessing and appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide need of plaintiff No. 3 and ordered the defendant to vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff on or before 15.11.2000 vide its judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000. Though the Trial Court has recorded findings in affirmation with regard the issue No.1 that whether plaintiff proved that the defendant was tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months, and in negative in respect of issue no. 2 that whether defendant is ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent and is he protected from eviction under Section 12 of the Rent Act but while deciding issue no.9 it has held that in view of the amount deposited in the Court nothing was due to from the defendant.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2000 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The plaintiffs also preferred cross-objection as the learned trial Judge did not pass decree for amount of rent and tax. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court heard and decided the appeal as well as cr