Civil Suite No

Civil suite no.
2619/2008
This suite is filed seeking vacant and peaceful possession

of the suite property along with recovery of Rs. 6569 as
the amount of tax paid by the plaintiff from 2002-03, 2008-
09. The plaintiff also seeks mesne profit at the rate of
10,000 rs from the date of suit till realization of
possession.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suite property being

the first floor of tenement no. 00513-0021-0002-L,
bungalow no. 15 of Ashok Cooperative society limited,
behind Little Flower School, Ahmedabad was given on
leave and license on various terms on 12/07/2002 for
monthly license fee of Rs. 2000 to the defendant and
thereafter the license fee was enhanced rs. 2200 per
month and since then the suite property is in possession
of the defendant. It is also the case of the plaintiff that no
proof with regards to payment of license fee was made by
the plaintiff and the defendant made entry in the
respective diary and upon expiry of the time period
mentioned in the leave and license agreement, fresh
agreements were executed between the parties till 2002.
However, after expiry of leave and license agreement in
2007 the plaintiff demanded the possession of the suite
property from the defendant. But the defendant did not pay
any heed to such a request and/or with a view to grab the
property and continue in possession of the property. The
defendant filed HRP suite no. 1337/2008 before the small
cause court, Ahmedabad with an ulterior motive and
based on false facts. It is also contended that after the
plaintiff filed written statement against the suite, the
defendant filed rejoinder in the said suite and denied about
execution of leave and license agreement which is clearly
indicative of the malicious intention of the defendant. It is
submitted that the daughter of the defendant has
attempted to lodge a false complaint against the relatives
of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that this suite property
would fetch licence fee of around 10,000 rs. And cause of
action to file the suit mentioned has denial on part of the
defendant to vacate the premises despite the expiry of the
last leave and license agreement from 2003-07 and filing
of HRP suit no. 1337/08 before the small causes court.
Pursuant to issuance of notice, the dependent has filed

reply at exb 13 and has denied the contention of the
plaintiff made in the plaintiff exb 1. It is further contended
that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by non-existence of
cause of action, bar of jurisdiction and suppression of
material facts. It is the case of the defendant that he is
protected tenant of the suit property and is in possession
of the same since 1998-99 and the amount of rent was
fixed at 2000 per month which was exclusive of electricity
bill as the distinct electric connection made available for
the suite property and the defendent was paying the
amount of rent as well as electricity bill regularly. It is
contended that owing to good relation with the defendant
initially no rent receipts were given for payment of rent and
only entries were made in the diary by the plaintiff wherein
signature of the defendant were obtained. However,
despite of repeated reminders to issue atleast a Katcha
Note, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to make note of
payment of rent made in the diary wherein the defendant
has put a counter signature, therefore, since July 2002.
The defendant started maintaining entries in the diary. It is
contended that in July 2006, the amount of rent enhanced
from 2000 per month to 2200, at the request of plaintiff as
the plaintiff afford for tenantable repairing and renovation
of work in the property if additional amount of 200 id paid.
However, despite a charge no repairing or renovation work
has been carried of by the plaintiff. In short, the defendant
claims to be inherited tenancy rights in the suite property
and contends that the suit is not maintainable before this
court.
In light of the pleadings on record, the following issues

were framed at exhibit 15 as under:
____
___
It may be noted that the suit was initially filed by Kasturba
and Niyant. However, upon their demise, the heirs of
original plaintiff are permitted to be substituted on record
vide order passed below exhibit 57. Similarly, the original
defendant P. D. Shah passed away and his heirs were
substituted on records vide order passed below exb 54.
The original plaintiff no. 1 Kasturba is examined at exhibit
17. She has reiterated the contents of plaint at exhibit 1. In
her cross examination by the Ld. advocate for the
defendant, she admits of the defendant being her tenant
having on its first floor of the property and he is also in
possession of the balcony premises. It is submitted that
the suit property was let out after the earthquake, but she
does not remember the exact date or year and that prior to
the giving the property on rent agreements were executed
which has been produced in the matter at hand. He admits
that the property was given to the defendant without any
agreement and she contends that no proof with regard to
payment by the defendant was made in the diary of
plaintiff as well as the defendant. And no distinct note for
payment of such an amount was issued. He denied that
the contentions with regard to property were tenanted in
the year 1998-99. It is also admitted that the defendant
pays electricity bills in respect of the property occupied by
him. However, she denies the defendant having paid
municipal tax. It is also admitted that the plaintiff as well as
defendant have appended signature in all the four
agreements and that her son has also appended his
signature. He admitted that the construction of the
bungalow is old with regard to suit property of being
capable of fetching rs. 10,000. It is stated that the said
amount is claimed on the basis of rent fetched by the
properties located in the neighborhood and that she has
no documentary evidence in this regard. She denied the
suggestion with regards to the defendant being statutory
tenant of the property and She denied the other
suggestions put by the defendant in the written statement.
The plaintiff has produced the following documentary
evidence vide list exb 18
—---------
—-------
The plaintiff has also examined one Kanhaiya Lal Shah as
witness at exb 28 and he has stated that he was serving in
the LIC vasna branch and he has filed list of documents as
sought vide list exb 29 and he has produced the
documents annexed with the list exb 30, 31 and 32. In his
cross examination by the defense, it is admitted that he
has produced an application dated 07/08/2002, given by
the defendant for changing of the address along with the
list. He has denied the suggestion that exb 31 is not a
letter and that the said letter was not given to the
defendant. It is admitted that he has no documentary
evidence with regards to letter produced at exb 31 being
issued to the defendant. It is admitted that the defendant
did not inform him about the change of address in person.
Thereafter the plaintiff has filed a closure memo at exb
____. The original defendant filed his examination in chief.
However, he could be cross-examined when the said
defendant passed away and after joining legal heirs of the
original defendant Dishaben Shah filed examination in
chief at exb 60. However, despite being granted ample
opportunity to remain present at court for the purpose of
being cross-examined by the plaintiff side, the defendant
remained absent and on account of her absence notice
was caused to be issued on 15/07/2022 at exb 64.
However, the said notice duly served and returned and
despite of such service, the defendant did not remain
present before the court. Hence the right of defendant for
the cross examination is closed and the matter was taken
for female arguments.
It needs to be noted that the original plaintiff moved

chambers summons application at exhibit 15-16 to get the
suit expedited on account of the plaintiff being a senior
citizen and said application was allowed. Hence the suite
was ordered to be expedited. Rojkaam reveals that the
matter was taken up for defendant evidence in October
2015 and time was sought by the defendant at exb 42 and
43. Thus taking in account the conduct of the defendant in
remaining absent despite issuance of notice for the
purpose of cross examination the matter was proceeded
further and taken up for final disposal.
The Ld. advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the
plaintiff has proved all the issues as framed at exb 15 and
the defendant has not substantiated any of the averments.
The only defense put forth by the defendant is that he is a
protected tenant. However, as per the recent development
the suit filed by the defendant before the small cause court
has been dismissed and the certified copy of the said
order is at exb 67 in the matter at hand. Hence,
considering the original facts and circumstances of the
case the suit may kindly be allowed.

Civil Suite No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Suite No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Suite No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil suite no.

This suite is filed seeking vacant and peaceful possession

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suite property being

Pursuant to issuance of notice, the dependent has filed

In light of the pleadings on record, the following issues

It needs to be noted that the original plaintiff moved

You might also like