Gujarat High Court
Legal Heir Of Deceased Ratilal ... vs Ramchandra Golibhai Koshti on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 251 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 251 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 251 of 2024
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED RATILAL LALJIBHAI KANAIYALAL RATILAL
VANAND
Versus
RAMCHANDRA GOLIBHAI KOSHTI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV H PANCHAL(12742) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR H M SHAH(3997) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DHRUVIK K PATEL(7769) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR. AKSHAT V. SHAH(15410) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The draft amendment, being found just and necessary for the proper adjudication of the lis, is hereby permitted to be carried out forthwith.
2. The present Revision Application, preferred under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, "the Rent Act"), calls in question the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the Courts below, whereby the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and decree rendered in H.R.P. Suit No.121 of 2002, instituted by the landlord, directed the tenant-appellant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of two shop premises situated at Plot No.8, Viratnagar, Isanpur, Ahmedabad (for short, "the demised Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined premises"). The said decree came to be affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No.243 of 2007.
3. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus:-
3.1. The applicant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2007 rendered in H.R.P. Suit No. 121 of 2002 by the learned 10th Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the suit came to be decreed against him, preferred Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The learned Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Being still aggrieved, the applicant preferred a Second Appeal on 30.09.2021 before this Court challenging both the judgments and decrees of the courts below.
3.2. In the meantime, the original plaintiff initiated Execution Petition No. 20 of 2021, pursuant to which the bailiff's report dated 09.08.2021 recorded the handing over of possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder. Although the execution proceedings were shown as withdrawn on the premise that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the applicant contends that no such settlement had in fact taken place and that the possession was delivered keeping all legal rights open. When the Second Appeal came to be placed before this Court, it was held to be not maintainable. However, the Court was pleased to grant liberty to the applicant to prefer an appropriate Civil Revision Application against Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the present petition.
4. I have heard learned Advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi, appearing for the appellant-original tenant, and learned Advocate Mr. Dhruvik Patel, appearing for the opponent-landlord.
5. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, learned Advocate Ms. Joshi has vehemently contended that the rent note was executed for a fixed period of eleven months, and upon the expiry of the said term, the tenancy ipso facto stood terminated. It was, therefore, urged that the learned Courts below committed a manifest error in entertaining the HRP Suit under the provisions of the Rent Act. It was further submitted that the Courts below erred in decreeing eviction by erroneously proceeding on the premise that the revisionist continued to be the tenant of the demised premises.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Patel for the opponent- landlord submitted that the execution proceedings were initiated to enforce the judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.243 of 2007, vide Execution Petition No.20 of 2001. It was pointed out that the possession of the shop, being the demised premises, was duly taken over in execution of the said decree, and subsequently, the execution petition came to be disposed of before the Lok Adalat in the year 2022. In view thereof, learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the present revision petition has been rendered infructuous and devoid of merit, and therefore deserves outright dismissal.
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
7. It is pertinent to note that the contention now sought to be raised by the applicant that the learned Rent Court lacked jurisdiction to pass a decree against a person who had ceased to be a tenant as on the date of institution of the suit was never urged before the learned Trial Court, nor was it agitated before the Appellate Court. Even otherwise, no such plea finds place in the written statement filed by the original tenant, Mr. Ratilal Laljibhai. It is trite that a ground not canvassed before the subordinate Courts cannot, as a matter of right, be raised for the first time in a revision proceeding.
8. Moreover, by virtue of the doctrine of holding over embodied under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, upon expiry of the fixed-term lease, the tenant, with the assent of the landlord, continues in possession as a tenant by operation of law. Ergo, the contention sought to be advanced by the revisionist pales into insignificance.
9. From the rival pleadings, the learned Trial Court, while adjudicating the suit, framed the following issues at Exhibit 36:-
"1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant in arrears of rent as alleged?
2. If So, Whether the defendant is ready and wiling to pay the rent, and is protected from eviction decree u/s. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves he has issued notice u/s.12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act to the defendant ?
4. Is the suit notice legal and valid ?
5. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of parties ?
6. Whether the suit is maintainable ?
7. What is the the standard rent and permanent in case of the suit premises ?
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
8. Whether the defendant Proves the averments made as Para.13 in w.s.?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession?
10. what relief Is the plaintiff entitled to get?
11. What order and decree?"
10. Analytically adverting to the evidentiary corpus adduced by both sides, the learned Trial Court proceeded to answer Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 in the affirmative, while Issues Nos. 2, 5, and 8 were answered in the negative. Issue No. 7 was determined by fixing the standard rent of the suit premises at Rs.125/- per month, and in respect of Issue No. 10, the learned Trial Court decreed eviction against the tenant.
11. A perusal of Issue No. 1 would reveal that the revisionist or his predecessor-in-interest, who was the original tenant, was not ready and willing to discharge the arrears of rent; ergo, eviction was warranted under Section 12 of the Rent Act. The question of standard rent having been raised by the father of the revisionist indubitably demonstrates that the tenancy status stood acknowledged. In view of this, the contention that the learned Rent Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute on the premise that the tenancy agreement had expired, pales into insignificance.
12. Unsuccessfully, the revisionist carried the matter in appeal. The learned Appellate Court, upon formulation of the points for determination in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, meticulously re-appreciated the entire factual milieu in paragraphs 10 and 11, and concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had failed to tender the same despite Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined service of a statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Rent Act.
13. The pertinent findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"10. Point No.1 :- The learned Trial Judge held in his judgment that the original plaintiff has produced the Counter foil of rent receipt at Exh. 48 which shows that the defendant has paid the rent upto 31.12.1985 but since then the defendant has not paid any rental amount to the plaintiff upto 31.08.2001 and further the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that. he has paid the rent upto 31.8.2001 to the plaintiff and he has not filed any complaint or any proceeding regarding not issuing of rent receipt before the Court or any other authority and also by considering the rent note Exh.47, the defendant has to pay the rent regularly and the plaintiff has to issue the rent receipt for the same and if the defendant raised any issue or dispute regarding non- issuance of the rent receipt, it cannot be taken into consideration and it will be voidable and also the defendant has to bear the municipal tax in addition to the rent. Further, learned Trial Judge has also erred that the defendant has not complied with the order passed below Exh.27 in which the defendant - tenant was directed to deposit Rs.35,078/- directly in the A.M.C. within two months from the date of the order. Further, the learned Trial Judge held that the defendant has to pay everything due within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act but he has not paid the due amount, and therefore, the defendant - tenant is not entitled to get any protection from eviction decree under Section-12 of the Bombay Rent Act and the defendant has gave the reply of demand notice but he has not sent the rent to the plaintiff. Hence, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there is no any ambiguity in the notice which is served to the defendant - tenant under Section-12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act in which the plaintiff has specifically demanded due amount of rent and therefore the said notice valid and legal one and considering the above fact, the learned Trial Judge Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined held that the defendant - tenant was arrears of rent for more than six months prior to filing of the suit and passed the order to handover the peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff - landlord. If it is perused through the papers on hand, the learned Advocate for the defendant (appellant) has raised contention that he was regularly paying the rental amount to the plaintiff - landlord and the municipal tax is not borne by the defendant - tenant. The defendant also raised an important contention that the municipal tax is regarding the entire property and he is ready and willing to pay the tax of suit shop only but the said contention was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Judge. Further, the defendant has deposited the due amount of rent in the Court which was declared by the defendant by passing Purshish at Exh 56 which shows that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the rental amount.
11. By considering the arguments led by the learned Advocates for the parties and perused through the papers on record, the appellant (defendant) has challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground of arrears of rent and if it would be looked into the matter, the plaintiff has produced the rent receipt at Exh. 48 from which it appears that the defendant has paid the rental amount upto 31.12.1985 and after that the defendant has not paid any rental amount to the plaintiff, on the contrary, the defendant raised objection and in his deposition he has stated that he has paid the rent upto 31.08.2001 to the plaintiff --landlord but the plaintiff has not issued the receipt for the same. By considering the fact the defendant admitted in his cross- examination that he has no documentary evidence to show that he has paid the rental amount upto 31.08.2001 to the plaintiff and he has not filed any proceeding or any complaint regarding not issuing of rent receipt before the Court or any competent authority and if it is perused through the rent note which was executed at Exh.47 in which the defendant has to pay the rent regularly and plaintiff has to issue the rent receipt for the same, but the dispute raised by the defendant - tenant that he has paid the rent without receipt will not be taken into consideration as it was clearly mentioned in the rent note at Ech. 47 in which the plaintiff -
Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
landlord has to issue the rent receipt against the payment received by the plaintiff. Further the learned Trial Judge has also passed the order Exh.27 in which the defendant - tenant was directed to pay Rs.35,078/- directly in the A.M.C. within two months from the date of the order but by perusing through the papers on record, the defendant has not complied with the said order. The defendant further raised the contention that the he cannot bear the tax of entire property but he is ready and willing to pay the tax of the suit shop only and the tax bill which is produced by the plaintiff is of entire property but in this context if it is perused through the papers at Exh.54 and Exh. 76 which are Certificate issued by the A.M.C. regarding due tax which shows that the occupiers of the suit shop is a father of the defendant and it also appears that the said certificates are pertaining to the suit shop only and hence the contention raised by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration. The plaintiff has produced the office copy of demand notice at Exh.49 and reply of notice at Exh.52. The plaintiff has specifically demanded the rent amount from 1.1.1986 to 30.11.2001 at the monthly rent of Rs.125/-p.m. So, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff has issued the legal notice under Section- 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act in which the plaintiff has specifically demanded the due amount of rent. The defendant after receiving of the demand notice has to pay the entire rental amount within one month but by perusing through the papers on record, the defendant has not paid the entire rental amount within the stipulated period of time but the defendant raised the contention that the he has deposited the due rent amount in the Court which he declared by Purshish at Exh.56 but the defendant has not paid the tax of the suit shop in the A.M.C. and the defendant in this context has not produced any evidence regarding the payment of tax which shows that the defendant is not ready and willing to pay entire rental amount. Moreover, as per the provision of Section-12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the defendant has to pay the entire rental amount within one month from receipt of the notice of the demand under Section-12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and if paying the rental amount within stipulated period of time, he can be protected from eviction decree under Section-12 of the Bombay Rent Act, but in the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined present case the defendant has gave the reply of demand notice but has not sent the rent to the plaintiff and he has not. filed any proceedings to fix the standard rent within stipulated period of time. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly held that the defendant is tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months prior to filing of the suit and the Appellate Bench requires no interference with the observation made by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, we answer to Point No.1 in the Negative and considering the above fact, the demand notice was duly served to the defendant and he has not paid the entire rental amount within one month. Hence, the defendant became tenant in arrears. Further, he has not raised any issue regarding the fixation of the standard rent and the defendant has also not paid the municipal tax which is to be borne by the defendant and by considering the above fact, the Appellate Bench does not require any interference in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. Hence, we pass the following final order for point no.2:-
::ORDER::
1. The present appeal memo is hereby dismissed.
2. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge in H.R.P. Suit No.121/2002 on dated 11.09.2007 is hereby confirmed.
3. Appellant/s shall bear own costs as well as of the respondent / s
4. Record and proceedings of HRP Suit No.121 of 2002 shall be returned to the Trial Court with copy of this judgment.
5. Decree to be drawn accordingly."
14. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable under Section 29 of the Rent Act, though somewhat wider in amplitude than that envisaged under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is nonetheless circumscribed and does not confer appellate powers upon this Court. Upon a meticulous perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revisionist has miserably failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/251/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/11/2025 undefined
15. It is also apposite to note that the revisionist stands to lose possession of the demised premises pursuant to the lawful execution of the decree, and, ergo, nothing survives for adjudication in the present revision.
16. In view of the foregoing ratiocination, the revision petition, being devoid of any merit, stands DISMISSED in limine at the admission stage.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Nov 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 11 23:10:36 IST 2025