Gujarat High Court
Bhikhubhai Bhagubhai Khalas vs Dudhnath Mahadev Trustee on 1 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 102 of 2025
==========================================================
BHIKHUBHAI BHAGUBHAI KHALAS
Versus
DUDHNATH MAHADEV TRUSTEE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAMLESH H SHAH(3938) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DAXAY D PATEL(6633) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act")against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.11.2024, passed by the Appellate Bench No.1, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.107 of 2014, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court No.3-Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.892 of 2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent herein shall be referred to as they are stated before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff herein had filed a suit to restrain the defendant Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined trustees from taking away the possession of the suit property without due process of law. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and giving findings on all the issues rejected the said suit and the plaintiff-tenant had filed Civil Appeal before the Appellate Bench No.1 of the Small Cause Court Ahmedabad and the said appeal has been rejected, hence the present Civil Revision Application.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the land lord had filed Civil Suit No.1592 of 2012 on the ground that the land lord is the owner of the suit premises and the suit premises is given on rent to defendant No.1 on monthly rent of Rs.25/- and since the year 1997, the defendant No. 1 was given the premises on rent for residence purpose.
5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are as under:
6. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed by the defendant tenant on the ground that the defendant tenant should not be dispossessed without due process of law. The landlord had filed HRP Suit No.1592 of 2012 for eviction and the said suit was filed by the landlord was on the ground that Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined the plaintiff of Civil Suit No.892 of 2012 is in arrears of rent and that the conduct of the plaintiff amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The defendant had also filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is keeping the premises closed and does not use the said premises and that the said premises is not used for more than 6 months prior to filing of the suit.
7. The plaintiff/tenant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement, denied the facts stated in the plaint. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit-12 which are as follows:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is a tenant in arrears of rent as alleged.
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the conduct of defendant no.1 is amounting nuisance and annoyance as alleged?
3. Whether the defendant no.1 keeps the suit premises closed and does not used for more that six months prior to the suit as alleged?
4.Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant no.1 has sublet, assigned or transferred the suit premises to the defendant no.2 and is profiteering thereby?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant no.1 has acquired suitable alternative accommodation as alleged?
5.1. Whether the defendant no.1 has made encroachment in unrented premises and making permanent changes in the suit Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined premises without prior permission of the plaintiff?
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get eviction decree?
7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get rent as alleged?
8. What order and decree?"
8. It is the land lord's case that plaintiff is not residing in the suit premises and the suit premises has been handed over by plaintiff. The plaintiff had examined himself vide Exhibit-23 and the witness of the plaintiff was examined vide Exhibit-34. And after going through the documentary evidence and the oral evidence giving finding on all the issues, the Trial Court passed a Judgment and Decree of eviction against the plaintiff under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act.
9. Ultimately, the Civil Revision Application No.86 of 2025 is also dismissed and therefore the fact remains that the plaintiff having filed a suit only for injunction and all the rights of the parties having been decided in HRP Suit No.892 of 2012 which has been confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2014 and thereafter, the Civil Revision Application no.86 of 2025 having been decided, nothing survives in the present Civil Revision Application.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined
10. Therefore, defendant has proved the fact that the plaintiff has acquired accommodation and, therefore, non- suitability of the property was to be proved by the defendant himself. Therefore, once it is established on record that the plaintiff has acquired vacant possession of suitable possession he is bound to vacate the possession.
11. In view of the fact that the landlord has already filed the suit for eviction, the Trial court and the Appellate Court having allowed the same, and the Civil Revision Application having been dismissed, the landlord has already initiated proceedings under due process of law and therefore also the present Civil Revision Application is required to be dismissed.
12. Therefore, on the overall basis of the material on record, on the basis of conclusion that has been referred to by the Courts below, the Court is of the opinion that there is no material irregularity nor any perversity reflecting which would permit this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The entire reasoning of both the Courts the findings are based upon clear analysis of the testimony of the witnesses for either side and also in consonance with documentary material and according to this Court it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the said order. Moreover, while deciding the Revision Application, the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined this Act is confined to find out that findings of fact recorded by the Courts below is according to law and does not suffer from any abuse of law. The findings recorded by the courts below if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, would result in gross miscarriage of justice. The same is open for correction because it is not treated as finding according to Law and in that event the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Rent Act, is entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper.
13. The High Court can not interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the first Appellate Court. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under this Act is confined to find out that finding recorded by the courts below is according to Law and does not suffer from any error of Law and only if the finding of facts recorded by the courts below, is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or that such finding is based on no evidence, or misreading of the evidence, or is grossly erroneous that, if allow to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice and the same is open to correction as the same is not treated as findings according to Law and in Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined the present case, the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court is neither perverse nor arrived at without consideration of the material evidence. In the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can not exercise its powers as an Appellate Court to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding of facts. Revisional jurisdiction is not and can not be equated with the powers of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
14. Under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. In view of the aforesaid facts and proposition of law and in view of the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below, since no case is made out to call for any interference in the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present Revision Application requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Thu May 01 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 02 06:09:13 IST 2025