Parting with exclusive possession of tenanted premises to third parties under the disguise of a partnership firm, combined with non-consumption of electricity, justifies a decree of eviction for subletting and non-use under the Rent Act.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Instant Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short "the Rent Act") questions, legality and propriety of judgment and decree dated 18.03.2021 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.34 of 2013 by which learned Principal District Judge, Porbandar in turn confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1250 of 2022 by learned Trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and he was held entitled to get eviction and peaceful possession of suit shop from defendant and it was further directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit shop to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of judgment.

2. Respondent herein is “plaintiff landlord” and appellant herein is “tenant defendant”. For convenience, they are referred as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. Factual aspects of the case pleaded by plaintiff are as under :-

3.1. Shop in house situated on street no.4, Sutharwadi, Porbander (suit shop) was rented to deceased – Ratilal on monthly rent of Rs.18. The plaintiff purchased the house along with rented suit shop from erstwhile owner. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit under the provisions of Rent Act claiming possession of suit shop on various grounds viz. Personal and bona-fide requirement of suit shop; suit shop was kept non use for more than six months prior to filing of the suit and thirdly that tenant has sublet suit shop to third party by executing partnership firm and handed over possession of the suit shop to the partners.

4. Summons of the suit was served to the defendants. Tenant appeared through power of attorney who is partner in partnership firm and filed written statement at Exh.14 to set up total case of denial. Relationship of landlord and tenant was accepted but three grounds pleaded by the plaintiff – landlord has been strenuously objected on the ground that plaintiff landlord has other premises to do business; rent shop is not kept closed and it is used for business in name and style of K.Popat and Company and there is no arrears of rent. No subletting in partnership firm ‘K.Popat and company’ tenant is active partner.

5. Learned Trial Court fixed issues at Exh.43 and thereafter, permitted both the parties to lead evidence in support of their pleadings. Ultimately, after hearing learned advocates for both the sides, learned Trial Court believed that plaintiff – landlord succeeded in proving all three grounds upon which he has sought peaceful and vacant possession of suit shop. By judgment and decree dated 28.06.2013, learned Trial Court directed defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of suit shop. Being aggrieved, the tenant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.34 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Porbander under the provisions of Rent Act but did not succeed. Hence, being aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this Revision inter-alia on the grounds mentioned in the Revision Application.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Parth Tolia for the appellant – tenant assailing concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below would mainly submit that learned Trial Court has committed serious error of understanding facts and law. It is further submitted that ground of