Gujarat High Court
Binaben D/O K. Anand Chaturbhai vs Kanubhai Biharilal Gokhle on 9 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/160/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 of 2025
==========================================================
BINABEN D/O K. ANAND CHATURBHAI
Versus
KANUBHAI BIHARILAL GOKHLE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL V DAVE(3846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Appellate Bench No.2 of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.58 of 2017 whereby the said Civil Appeal No.58 of 2017 is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2016 passed in HRP Suit No.1462 of 2011 is confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts arising in the present proceedings are that the plaintiff had filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is a tenant under the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act', for short) and that the plaintiff is in physical possession of the premises and relief is sought for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff without due process of law. The trial Court framed the issues vide Exh.47 and after considering Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:11:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/160/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and after giving findings on all the issues, trial Court dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.58 of 2017 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that suit property was let-out to the plaintiff's father and the owner of the property had sold the property of the defendant and the plaintiff's father died on 14.02.1995 whereas the mother of the plaintiff died on 11.04.2003 and the plaintiff being heir of her parents claimed to be legal heir of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act, the plaintiff is the tenant of the property. The plaintiff has stated that after death of the mother, though the plaintiff was married, the plaintiff has been residing in the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property. The plaintiff relied on provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act and stated that in view of the provision of the said act, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are required to be quashed and set aside.
5.1 Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff, the fact remains that plaintiff has examined herself vide Exh.52 and if the documentary evidence that have been produced by the plaintiff are taken into consideration, admitted position is that the plaintiff is elder daughter of original tenant and that original tenant died on Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:11:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/160/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined 14.02.1995. After the death of original tenant, his wife became the tenant of the suit property who died on 11.04.2003. It has also come on record that plaintiff's marriage was solemnized in the year 1999. Earlier the landlord had filed HRP No.144 of 2004 against younger sister of the plaintiff Binduben in the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad and the present plaintiff was not joined in the said proceedings. All the said facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff while filing the said suit. It has not come on record that any amount is paid by the plaintiff as rent either to defendant or the earlier landlord. The plaintiff has tried to rely on Municipal Tax Bill and bill amount regarding electric consumption charges, however, the fact remains that under the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act [which is reproduced as under] 5.2 Therefore, the plaintiff will have to prove that at the time of death of the tenant, the plaintiff was residing with the original tenant and after the death of original tenant when tenant of the property was the wife of original owner, whether the plaintiff was residing at the time of death with the said tenant. From the averments made in the written statement, the defendant has taken a contention that planitiff's marriage was solemnized in the year 1999 and after the marriage she was residing in her in-laws house and the said fact has not been denied by the plaintiff. Though it has been stated in the oral evidence of the plaintiff that as her mother's health was not good, she did not go to her in-laws house and was residing with the mother in the year 1999 and it is only in the cross-examination for the first time the plaintiff has admitted about her marriage having been solemnized in the year 1999. Though the plaintiff has stated about ill-health of Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:11:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/160/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined mother of the plaintiff, who was tenant of the property, after death of original tenant, but not a single document is produced to prove about ill-health of the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not produced any evidence of the neighbor to prove that the plaintiff was residing in the suit property at the time of death of her mother. There is nothing on record to prove the fact that the plaintiff was tenant in the property under the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Act. The fact that the plaintiff has not proved that at the time of death or before few months of death of the tenant, plaintiff was using the premises and the said fact having not been proved, the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court in regard to issue of tenancy of the plaintiff are correct and are legally decided and, therefore, no interference is required. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be dismissed.
6. Therefore, on the basis of overall analysis of the material on record, on the basis of conclusion that has been referred to by the Court 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 below 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 by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under this Act, this Court 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 Court below if Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:11:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/160/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined 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. The High Court can not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. In the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can not exercise its powers as an appellate power 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.
7. 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) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:11:58 IST 2025