Skip to content


Abasaheb Dinkarrao Bhonsle Vs. the Collector, Valsad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 1885 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Guj14; (1983)2GLR1009
ActsBombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 - Sections 6
AppellantAbasaheb Dinkarrao Bhonsle
RespondentThe Collector, Valsad and ors.
Appellant Advocate S.S. Belsare, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.A. Panchal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - 3. the trial court was satisfied that there was no evidence on the record of this case to show that the plaintiff had any tenancy right in respect of the suit premises and h-rice it refused to grant the interim relief as prayed for......in the suit by the present petitioner pertained to his alleged tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. the present petitioner claims in the suit that the suit premises were let out to h6 by the landlord respondent 4 herein and that the order of the collector, valsid requiring the petitioner to vacate, the suit premises on his being transferred from valsad to navsari is illegal, void and inoperative in law. the petitioner had prayed for the interim stay of the operation of the said order of the-collector.3. the trial court was satisfied that there was no evidence on the record of this case to show that the plaintiff had any tenancy right in respect of the suit premises and h-rice it refused to grant the interim relief as prayed for. the petitioner challenged the order of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This civil revision application is, filed by the present petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit against the judgment and order dated 16th Oct. 1982 passed by the learned District Judge, Valsad at Navsari in iscellaneous Civil Application No. 39 of 1982 dismissing the appeal filed against the order below Exh. 5 passed by the learned Civil Judge,, Senior Division, Valsad in Regular Civil Suit No. 123/82 whereby the application for interim relief of the pre sent petitioner was rejected.

2. The contentions raised in the suit by the present petitioner pertained to his alleged tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. The present petitioner claims in the suit that the suit premises were let out to h6 by the landlord respondent 4 herein and that the order of the Collector, Valsid requiring the petitioner to Vacate, the suit premises on his being transferred from Valsad to Navsari is illegal, void and inoperative in law. The petitioner had prayed for the interim stay of the operation of the said order of the-Collector.

3. The trial Court was satisfied that there was no evidence on the record of this case to show that the plaintiff had any tenancy right in respect of the suit premises and h-rice it refused to grant the interim relief as prayed for. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial Court in 'he District Court. The District Court upheld the finding and decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner. It is against this order of dismissal of his appeal that the petitioner has come to this court in revision.

4. Mr. S. S. Belsare, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that MpOndent.1 has not followed the procedure laid down for requisition of premises and that there is no legal and valid order of requisition in force and hence the petitioner's occupation of the suit premises should be regarded as being by virtue of his tenancy rights independent of the requisition. Mr. Belsare has relied on a receipt purporting to have been issued by the landlord (present respondent No. 4) to show that there was a direct tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Belsare has also relied on the letter D/- 10-10-1966 intimating to the present petitioner the factum of allotment of the suit premises with effect from 6-10-1966.

5. These contentions of Mr. Belsare are not based on sound proposition of law and, therefore, they cannot be accepted Mr. Belsare has not been able to point out any evidence to show that the present petitioner had legally valid tenancy rights in his favour. Admittedly the claims tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises from January 1966 when the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act 33 of 1948) was in force in Valsad; and that neither the landlord could have given the suit premises or land directly to the present petitioner nor could the present petitioner have legally taken it on, rent in view of the provisions of the said Act and hence no legal tenancy could have come into existence in favour of the petitioner at the material time. Mr. Belsare has tried to show that intimation given by the landlord is not in the prescribed form and that the Government has not made an inquiry contemplated, under Section 6 of the Act and that there have been two successive order of requisition, one passed in February, 1966 and another in October, 1966. Hence, according to him, the second requisition order is illegal and void. Mr. Belsare has also pointed out that the amount paid in respect of the house and occupation of the suit premises is referred to as compensation in the Act and not as rent; whereas the rent receipt has used the word 'rent'. Suffice it to say that all these submissions of Mr. Belsare are outside the point. Any illegality or irregularity in respect of the requisition proceedings would not establish the preexisting tenancy rights of the present petitioner. Hence there is absolutely no ground whatsoever to hold that the concurrent finding of the two courts below is illegal or improper. The revision, therefore, is rejected as there is no substance in the matter. At this stage, Mr. Belsare requested that some time may be given to the present petiti6ner to vacate the suit premises to obviate hardship which he may have to face. The Court was inclined to grant some time and even the landlord (respondent 4) showed his willingness to grant some time on condition hat the present petitioner files an undertaking is this court to the effect that be is exclusively in possession of the suit premises and that he will hand over the possession, of the said premises on the date fixed 1: by this court and that he will in the, meantime not transfer the same to any other person and will continue to, pay compensation till he hands over Possession., The Petitioner is not willing to file such an. undertaking it is quite obvious that the petitioner has in mind some other legal remedy that may be available to him and hence, he does not want to file this undertaking which this-court cannot compel him to do. Hence there is no question of granting him any time. The interim stay granted by this court is vacated. In the circumstances of the case, rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

6. Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //