Gujarat High Court
Shakuben Wd/O Asalaji Chenaji vs Lr Of Deceased Kiritkumar Bansilal ... on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 578 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
================================================================
SHAKUBEN WD/O ASALAJI CHENAJI
Versus
LR OF DECEASED KIRITKUMAR BANSILAL TRIVEDI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. AMMAR SAIYED(17184) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) challenging the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.121 of 2017, whereby the appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in, HRP Suit No.489 of 2006, dated 14.03.2006, passed by the Small Causes Court No.4 at Ahmedabad.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are that the plaintiff instituted suit for eviction on Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined the ground that defendant has made unlawful structure in the suit premises without plaintiff's consent which cannot be removed without causing serious damage to the premises, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the premises under section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act. It was also the case of the plaintiff before the Rent Court that the defendant has unlawfully sublet the suit premises and that the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own reasonable and bonafide requirement and that the defendant is tenant in arrears, and therefore, the plaintiff has sought for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. The summons and notice of the suit were served and defendant had appeared and filed her written statement, vide Exhibit-13 and the defence taken by the defendant was that the defendant had taken only the land of the suit premises on rent from the predecessor of the plaintiff and that the construction of the suit premises is owned by the defendant. The trial Court framed issues, vide Exhibit-14, which reads as under:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves the terms of tenancy with defendant?
(ii) Whether the defendant has made or erected unlawful structure or alteration in the suit premises without plaintiff's consent which cannot be removed without causing serious damage to the premises?Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has unlawfully sublet the suit premises and thereby profiteers?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff reasonable and bonafide requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as alleged?
(v) Whether the defendant would be put to greater hardship by passing the decree than by refusing to pass in favour of the plaintiff?
(vi) What relief is the plaintiff entitled to get?
(Added as per order below Exh.15) (vi/A)Whether the defendantt proves tht the plaintiff is not owner of super structure?
(vi/B)If not, whether it amount to disclaimer of plaintiff's title and whether it makes entitled to plaintiff or possession on the ground of disclaimer?
(Added as per order below Exh.58) (vi/C)Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant in arrears of rent as alleged?
(vi/D)Whether the notice served to the defendnt is legal and valid?
(vi/E)Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation as alleged?
(vi/F)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rent and mesne profit as prayed for?
(vi/G)Whether the defendant is ready and willing to pay the rent Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined and is protected from eviction decree u/s.12 of the Bombay Rent Act?
(vii)What order and decree?
4. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit-19. The defendant examined herself, vide Exhibit-44 and witness of the defendant examined, vide Exhibit-55 and after considering the oral evidence, documentary evidence and giving findings on all the issues the trial Court came to a finding that the plaintiffs have proved the ground of permanent construction, arrears of rent and that the defendant has acquired the vacant possession of the suitable residence, and therefore, the suit was allowed and defendant was directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.121 of 2017 and after reappreciating the evidence the appellate Court found error in the judgment and decree of the trial Court to pass eviction decree on the ground of section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act and stated that the plaintiff has proved his case under section 13(1)(a) of the Rent Act as the defendant has stated in their cross-examination that the suit premises is room only and they have erected two walls and chhapra thereby they have made another room in the portion of the chhapra and have not taken consent of the plaintiff and the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined said act was a clear case of breach of terms of tenancy and against legal provision of Rent Act and Transfer of Property Act and held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises under section 13(1)(a) of the Rent Act and the appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is tenant in arrears and that the defendant has acquired alternative suitable residence. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the present Civil Revision Application is filed.
5. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that there was a bonafide dispute regarding standard rent raised in the written statement, and therefore, as the tenant raised the bonafide dispute, eviction under section 12(3)(a) could not be attributable base and section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act would apply, and therefore, the trial Court could not have passed a decree of eviction on the ground that the defendant is tenant in arrears and the appellate Court could not confirmed the same. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the defendant was always ready and willing to deposit the amount of rent and that the defendant had deposited part of the rent and expressed his willingness to pay the arrears, and therefore, also the trial Court could not have passed a decree of Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined eviction on the ground of defendant being in arrears.
6. With respect to the fact that the plaintiff had filed a suit under section 13(1)(L) of the Rent Act stating that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of the suitable accommodation, the trial Court and appellate Court could not have come to the finding only because that the son owned the premises and that her name appeared in the voter list.
7. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the growing number of family members of the defendant and the fact that the new premises is not a suitable accommodation for their family. It has also been argued by learned advocate for the defendant that the defendant has continued to live in the suit premises, and therefore, the Court could not have granted decree of eviction under section 13(1)(L) of the Rent Act, and therefore, it has been argued that the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed.
8. Having heard learned advocate for the defendant and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court, the decree that has been passed is on the following grounds that defendant is tenant in arrears, the defendant has acquired suitable Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined accommodation and the tenant has committed an act contrary to the provision of Clause (o) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
9. In this background, if the evidence on record is taken into consideration, it has come on record that the defendant had paid rent till 14.02.2002, the plaintiff had issued statutory notice under section 12 of the Rent Act through their advocate on 03.01.2006, which is produced, vide Exhibit-29 the defence that has been taken by the defendant is that the rent of Rs.75/- is exorbitant rent but the fact remains that the plaintiff has not produced and has not led any evidence as to how the said rent is exorbitant.
10. In the present case, issues were framed, vide Exhibit-14 on 06.12.2010 and the suit was instituted on 14.03.2006 vide Exhibit-112, the defendant has stated that he has deposited Rs.1350/- in the Court, if the case on hand is taken into consideration, the defendant has not deposited due rent amount from 15.02.2002 to 14.11.2010, i.e. around 96 months x 75=7200/- and it has come on record that the defendant has not paid due rent amount till the year 2017, even in the cross- examination, defendant has admitted that she has paid due rent amount of 12 to 13, years but she has not produced any evidence Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined regarding her claim that the defendant has paid due rent before six months from the date of demand notice, and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court with respect to defendant being tenant in arrears is as per law and does not require any interference.
11. With respect to the fact that the trial Court and first appellate Court have passed a judgment and decree of eviction on the ground that the defendant has found alternative suitable accommodation. From the oral evidence of the defendant, it has been proved that the defendant has acquired another accommodation at Patel Estate. The defendant has also examined her son, vide Exhibit-55 and looking to his evidence also, it has been proved that the defendant has acquired suitable accommodation. Moreover, even as per the voter list produced, vide Exhibit-93, the name of the defendant and her son and daughter-in-law are stated as at the another alternative accommodation at Patel Estate, and therefore, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has acquired alternative suitable accommodation, and therefore, the trial Court and the first appellate Court have rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property and the defendant is liable to be evicted under section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined
12. With respect to the judgment and decree of the appellate Court of granting eviction under section 13(1)(a) of the Rent Act, the fact remains that it has been proved by the plaintiff that the suit premises was a room only but thereafter the defendants have erected two walls on the chhapara and thereby they have made another room in the portion chhapara without taking consent of plaintiff, and therefore, the same is clear breach of terms of tenancy and against the legal provision of Rent Act and Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, there is no rent note but the fact is that the defendant has admitted that the suit premises was only one room and in which they have erected two walls on the chhapara without taking consent of the landlord, therefore, the appellate Court has rightly granted decree under section 13(1)(a) of the Rent Act. In view of the same, the present Revision Application does not require any interference.
13. 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 Court 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 Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 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 courts below is according to law and does not suffer from any abuse of law. The findings recorded by the Court 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.
14. The findings recorded by both the courts below are based on critical appreciation of the evidence led by the parties on record and does not suffer any error or material irregularities. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant is tenant in arrears and defendan has acquired alternative sitable accommodation and has committed brech unde section13(1)(a) of the Rent Act, and therefore, there was no error committed by the courts below which requires any correction at the hands of the High Court in exercise of Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/578/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined revisional jurisdiction.
15. 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) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 08 01:13:51 IST 2025