Gujarat High Court
Mansingh Babulal Lodha vs Sundersingh Ranjitsingh Lodha Decd ... on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 377 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MANSINGH BABULAL LODHA & ORS.
Versus
SUNDERSINGH RANJITSINGH LODHA DECD THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BN LIMBACHIA(3454) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JN JADEJA(1027) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
NISHITH K JOSHI(9193) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NEERAJ J VASU(3159) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and decree, passed in Civil Appeal No.39 of 1999, dated 21.03.2003 whereby the judgment and decree passed in HRP Civil Suit No.105 of 1991, dated 17.01.1991 has been quashed and set aside.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
3. Brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are that the plaintiff landlord filed suit for eviction on the ground that the defendant is tenant in arrears and that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own bonafide and Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined personal occupation and also on the ground that the defendant is guilty of conduct which amounts to nuisance and annoyance. The trial Court framed issues, vide Exhibit-20, which reads as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months?
2. Whether the suit notice is legal and valid?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendnat is guilty of conduct which amounts to nuisence and annoyance?
5. Whether the agreed rent is excessive?
6. What should be the standard rent of the suit premises?
7. Whether the defendant proves that greater hardship would be caused to him if suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff?
8. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata?
9. Whether the plaintiff is enttitled to recover possession of the suit premises?
10. What decree and order?
Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
4. The plaintiff examined his son, vide Exhibit-22. The defendant filed his oral evidence, vide Exhibit-39 and after taking into consideration the oral evidence and documentary evidence and giving findings on all the issues, the trial Court decreed the said suit and granted eviction of the defendant from the suit property on the ground that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit property for his bonafide requirement and i.e. under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the tenant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.39 of 1999 and after reappreciating the evidence the first appellate Court allowed the same and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Revision Application.
6. The learned advocate for the plaintiff landlord has mainly argued that, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is contrary to law and facts of the case. It has been argued that the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the false criminal complaint filed by the tenant against the mother of the plaintiff-landlord causing her mental agony harassment. Moreover, it has also been argued that the first appellate Court has also erred in deciding the issue No.1 Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined with respect to arrears of rent in view of the fact that the trial Court has come to the conclusion that defendant is in arrears of rent. Moreover, it has been argued that the appellate Court has ignored the deposition of the witnesses and it has also been argued by learned advocate for the plaintiff landlord that the appellate Court has erred in distinguishing that the suit premises consists of two rooms situated on the first floor and are in possession of the defendant while the ground floor consists of two rooms which are in occupation of Hasmukh Panchal and rear room on the west is in possession of other tenant Kalu. It has also been argued that the first appellate Court has also erred in not taking into account that the suit premises in possession of the tenant is situated at Swaminarayan Chawl - Outside Dariyapur gate.
7. Moreover, learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that the appellate Court has erred in believing that there is no disclosure of number of rooms and strength of family members and has overlooked the deposition of oral evidence of the plaintiff's son, Exhibit-22. It has been argued that the first appellate Court has erred in ignoring the contention of the tenant in written statement, vide Exhibit-12 in Civil Suit No.1052 of 1976, produced vide Exhibit-36 contending that there is no jurisdiction of the Court to decide the dispue as there is no Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined relation of landlord and tenant between the parties.
8. It has also been argued that the first appellate Court has also erred in not taking into conisdertion the fact that the tenant had a rented premises in his possession at Swaminarayan Chawl and no hardship would be caused to the defendant as decided by trial Court and in that view of the matter, it has been argued that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court is required to be confirmed.
9. Per contra, learned advocate for the tenant has mainly argued that with respect to the fact that the tenant is in arrears of rent, the said issue was decided in favour of the tenant and it was held that the landlord is not entitled for the possession of the property on the ground of tenant being tenant in arrears and also on the issue whether the defendant-tenant is causing nuisance and annoyance in the suit premises. Both the issues have been decided against the plaintiff-landlord and the trial Court had held that the landlord is not entitled for possession of the premises on the said ground and the trial Court had only granted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises under section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act, therefore, the said submissions of tenant being tenant in arrears of rent and that tenant causing Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined nuisance and annoyance landlord will be of no help to the landlord while deciding the present Revision Application, as the only issue before the Revisional Court is with respect to the fact that whether the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit property and whether greater hardship will be caused to the plaintiff landlord, if the decree of eviction is not passed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court does not require any interference as the same is as per provision of law. Moreover, the appellate Court is the final court of fact, and therefore, in revision, the said issue of facts cannot be considered, therefore also, present Revision Application is required to be rejected.
10. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which has been quashed by the first appellate Court after taking into consideration the oral evidence and documentary evidence. The fact remains that it has come on record that the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his bonafide requirement taking into consideration the evidence of plaintiff's witness where he has stated that there are 22 members in his family and that the plaintiffs are in possession of three rooms and two kitchen. It has been stated that all the family Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined members cannot be accommodated in that premises, and therefore, the judgment and decree of eviction was passed. As against that, it was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has four sons and they are residing in their own premises with their respective families, and therefore, are in possession of six rooms.
11. In the present case, the plainttiff-landlord had to satisfy that he requires the suit premises for occupation by him or his family and that such requirement is reasonable and bonafide and it is only after the plaintiffs satisfy the abovereferred requirement that the Court will have to consider the question of hardship as per the explanation (2) under section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act.
12. If the entire evidence is taken into consideration, the plaintiff has not placed anything on record to disclose how many rooms are occupied by the plaintiff and his family members. Moreover, there is also no averments either in the plaint or that has come on record by way of evidence as to the reasons of requirement of the plaintiff though a vague statement has been made that the plaintiff requires the suit property for their personal use and that the plaintiff finds it difficult to reside in the suit premises with his family.
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
13. The plaintiff has not come forward and proved the fact that where does family of the plaintiff reside and how many members are residing together, though a vague statement has been made that there are 22 members in the family and vide Exhibit-22, the plaintiff has stated that all four brothers are residing in another house at Dariyapur where there are two rooms in their possession and all 22 members i.e. four brothers, wife and 13 children and their sister are residing together and it has been stated that 22 members are not accommodated in this two rooms. The trial Court has observed that the plaintiff had in his possession three rooms and two kitchen, therefore, the entire case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has occupied two rooms in his possession was a false statement made by the plaintiff, when in the oral evidence of the defendant, vide Exhibit-39, the defendant had categorically stated that the entire family of the plaintiff are residing in their separate respective house. There is nothing on record to suggest and prove that the facts stated by defendant is not true. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show and suggest that the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own bonafide requirement. In view of the same, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court does not require any interference.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
14. 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 the Appellate Court 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 is confined to find out that findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court is according to law and does not suffer from any abuse of law. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court 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.
Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined
15. 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 Appellate Court is according to Law and does not suffer from any error of Law and only if the finding of facts recorded by the Appellate Court, 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 allowed 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 the present case, the finding of facts recorded by 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 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.
16. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are based on critical appreciation of the evidence led by the parties on record and does not suffer any error or material irregularities. The Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/377/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the landlord has not proved the case of bonafie requirement as per section13(1)(g) of the Rent Act, and therefore, there was no error committed by the Appellate Court which requires any correction at the hands of the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
17. 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 findings of fact by the Appellate Court, since no case is made out to call for any interference in the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court quashing and setting aside 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) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:55:26 IST 2025