C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 575 of 2019
=======================================================
STELABEN Y. FARDEL
Versus
DIRECTOR / ADMINISTRATOR
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 22/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicants have filed this Civil Revision Application under the provision of the Bombay Rent Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 inter alia praying for quashment of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.36/2007 and the order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.406/2001.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are as under, 2.1 The respondent herein, who is original plaintiff filed Rent Suit No.406/2001 against the applicants herein before the court of Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara, wherein it has been stated that the husband of the respondent no.1 and father of the respondent no.1/2 viz., Yunus A. Fardel was serving in the institute of plaintiff from the year 1958 upto his supperannuation i.e. 21.09.1993 and during his service, he was allotted the quarter (suit premises), however after his retirement, he was asked to handover the possession of the suit premises but he refused and in the meantime, he died on 20.02.2001 and, hence, his heirs i.e. the respondents herein can be said to be trespasser after the sad demise of Yunus A. Fardel.
2.2 However despite making several requests, they did not handover the vacant possession of the suit premises, which led to filing of aforesaid rent suit, where after affording opportunity to both the sides, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara, by an order dated 19.03.2007, was pleased to allow the said Suit and directed the respondents - original defendants to handover the vacant Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff within two months from the date of said order and it was also directed to pay Rs.150/- per month to the plaintiff towards mense profit from the date of the said suit till handing over the possession of the suit premises.
2.3 Against the aforesaid order, the respondents
- original defendants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.36/2007 before the learned District Court, Vadodara under Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2.4 However there also, after appreciating the documents available on record and after affording opportunity to both sides, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, by an order dated 19.09.2019, was pleased to dismiss the said Appeal and thereby uphold the order of learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Application is filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Majmudar appearing for Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 the applicants.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that both the learned Courts below have committed grave error in passing impugned orders. It is also submitted that the respondent - original plaintiff was collecting rent directly from the salary of the applicant, however, both the learned Courts below have failed to consider the documents produced below Exhs.63-69. It is submitted that both the Courts below have failed to consider the conditions of the agreement produced at Exh.43 because Condition NO.5 of the said agreement provides for re-allotment of the quarter. It is, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and the impugned orders of both the Courts below be quashed and set aside.
5. I have heard learned advocate for the applicant and also perused the documents placed on record. From the records, it is clear that the husband of the applicant no.1 was serving with the respondent
- Institute and, hence, he was allotted quarter, however after the retirement, he was to vacate the suit premises, which he did not vacate and after his sad demise, the applicants herein, who are his Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 legal heirs, were enjoying the possession of the suit premises without payment of any rent. It is also revealed from the record that the respondent
- Institute had made request to the husband of the applicant no.1 to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises as also to the applicant no.1 but instead of vacating the suit premises, they filed Rent Suit No.138/2001 before the Small Causes Court, Vadodara. Thus considering all these facts, the Small Causes Court, Vadodara allowed the suit filed by the respondent - original plaintiff and directed the applicants - original defendants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and the said order has rightly been confirmed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal filed by the respondent herein and thus, there are concurrent findings of facts, which do not require any interference by this Court.
6. Further, from the record, it is revealed that the husband of the applicant no.1 retired from the services on 1993 and was enjoying the possession of the suit premises till 20.02.2001 i.e. till his death and then, the applicants herein were Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 enjoying the possession of the suit premises. Thereafter, the Rent Suit was filed in the year 2001, which was allowed in the year 2007 and then, Regular Civil Appeal was filed, which was allowed in the year 2019. Thus all these years, the respondents are enjoying the possession of the suit premises without any payment of rent. Even the present Civil Revision Application is filed before this Court in the month of December, 2019 and till date, it has been adjourned from time to time and no stay has been granted in favour of the applicants and despite that, they are enjoying the quarter. Thus all these years without any stay granted in favour of the applicants, they are enjoying the possession of the suit premises.
7. It appears from the material available on record that the husband of the applicant no.1 was allotted the suit premises by executing an agreement on 08.05.1964, however on attaining the age of supperannuation, he retired from the services on 21.09.1993 and then, he passed away on 20.02.2001. It appears from the record that the services of Oliver Christopher were terminated on 09.07.1994 and on the basis of the compromise Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 arrived at between the parties in the proceeding pending before the Labour Court, he was reinstated in service on 03.07.2006, however from the letter dated 05.06.2010, copy of which was placed on record before the Appellate Court by the respondent herein, it is revealed that the applicant no.1 has been relieved from the services w.e.f. 05.06.2010 by the Methodist Technical Institute.
Thus from the above facts, it is clear that the husband of the applicant no.1 was allotted the suit premises by executing the agreement on 08.05.1964 while he was in serving as tenant of the Institute and on attaining the age of supperannuation, he retired from the service on 21.09.1993 and as per the condition of the agreement executed with the husband of the applicant no.1. the suit premises was allotted till his retirement and thus after his retirement from the service i.e. on 21.09.1993, the husband of the applicant can be said to be ceased to be a service tenant in respect of the suit premises. It is also evident from the record that there is no agreement between the applicants and the Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 respondent in respect of the suit premises and thus, it is clear that the suit premises was not allotted to the applicants and they were tenant in respect of the suit premises. Therefore the findings given and the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are just and proper and do not require any interference in the facts of the present case.
8. It is well settled that while exercising revisional powers, the High Court cannot appreciate or reappreciate the evidence. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lachhman Dass Vs. Santokh Singh, reported in 1995 AIR SCW 2766, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, "7. The first question that arises for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in re-assessing the value of the evidence and substitute his own conclusions in respect of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, in exercise of his revisional powers vested in the High Court under Section 15(6) of the Act. In the present case as discussed earlier the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 against the respondent on the ground mentioned under Section 13 of the Act against which the respondent preferred an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Here it may be noted that the Act does not provide a second appeal against the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority under sub- section (2) of Section 15. The Act, however, under sub-section (6) of Section 15 makes a provision for revision to the High Court against any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. Thus, the Legislature has provided for a single appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and no further appeal has been provided under the Act. The Legislature has, however, made a provision for discretionary remedy of revision which is indicative of the fact that the Legislature has created two jurisdictions different from each other in scope and content in the form of an appeal and revision. That being so the two jurisdictions - one under an appeal and the other under revision cannot be said to be one and the same but distinct and different in the ambit and scope. Precisely stated, an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022 C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021 are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and reaporeciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by a decision of this Court in State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co. [1965 (1) SCR 601 at 604 ]."
9. Therefore in view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision and considering the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that no error is committed by both the Courts below while passing impugned orders, which do not require any interference.
10. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application is rejected.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 17:19:12 IST 2022