Gujarat High Court
Vasantiben Vitthalbhai Patel vs L H Of Decd. Suryaben Chimanbhai Patel on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 400 of 2024
================================================================
VASANTIBEN VITTHALBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
L H OF DECD. SURYABEN CHIMANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Application has been filed under section 29(2) of Gujarat Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the judgment and decree, dated 22.02.2023, passed by Appellate Bench No.2 of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.141 of 2017, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, in HRP Suit No.205 of 2012, whereby the Small Causes Court No.9, Ahmedabad had allowed the suit and directed the defendants to vacant peaceful possession of the suit premises within three months from the date of order.
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 Revision Application are that the plaintiff being the owner of the premises had rented the suit property for business purpose to the defendant and it was Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined agreed that the defendant No.1 shall not sublet the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has given possession of the suit premises to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.2 is doing business in the name of Uma Tea Trading Company and defendant No.3 is doing business in the name of Dhanlaxmi Trading Company and defendant No.4 is doing business in the name of Kameshwar Trading Company, and therefore, it was the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the defendant No.1 is not using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months preceding the instiution of the suit and that defendant No.1 has sublet the suit premises to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and profiteering thereby. The trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit- 22 as under:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 has sublet, assigned or transferred the sit premises to defendnat No.2 to 4 and is profiteering thereby?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit premises?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get mesne profit as alleged?Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
(v) What order and decree?
4. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit-27. The plaintiff No.3 examined vide Exhibit-52. Additional affidavit of plaintiff No.3 was filed, vide Exhibit-66. The defendant No.2 was examined vide Exhibit-81 and after taking into consideration the oral evidence and documentry evidence and giving findings on all the issues the trial Court passed decree of eviction against the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.141 of 2017 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the first appellate Court rejected the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court in HRP Suit No.205 of 2011, dated 11.08.2017. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.
5. Learned advocate for the defendant Nos.1 & 2 has mainly argued that the suit premises was let to the partnership firm Uma Tea Trading Company with defendant Nos.2 to 4 as business assistance and that the trial Court overlooked the principal that the Partnership Firm may never be considered as sub-tenant. It is the case of the defendant that plaintiff had never raised any objection regarding the name of Uma Tea Trading Company and that the plaintiff had executed MOU vide Exhibit-48 and Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined that the plaintiffs are well aware that the possession of the suit premises is running in the name of Partnership Firm and defendant No.1 is adminstrator of Uma Tea Trading Company and it is only for the convenience that the rent receipt is in the name of defendant No.1 and that defendant No.2 is helping defendant No.1 as partner of Uma Tea Trading Company and that defendant Nos.3 & 4 are helping in Uma Tea Trading Company and that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not doing any independent business in the suit premises.
6. Moreover, it has been argued that if the deposition of the plaintiff is perused the plaintiff in the cross-examination had admitted that the suit premises was let to defendant No.1 for business and the business is running in the name of Uma Tea Trading Company and has also admitted in the cross- examination that by MOU dated 01.08.2011, it has been agreed that the other partners of Uma Tea Trading partnership firm, i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 4, shall do the business in the suit premises, and therefore, it has been argued by the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 & 2 that the plaintiff herself has admitted that there was an agreement that defendant Nos.2 to 4 can do business in the name of Uma Tea Trading Company and that the plaintiff herself has produced MOU, vide Exhibit-48, therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff herself has permitted defendant Nos.
Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
2 to 4, to do business in the suit premises. Therefore, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are doing partnership business in the name of Uma Tea Trading Company in the suit premises to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and therefore, the same cannot be considered as sublet.
7. Moreover, learned advocate for the defendant Nos.1 & 2 has also argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that by way of alleged subletting the defendant No.1 profiteering, the learned advocate for the defendant Nos.1 & 2 relied upon the judgment in the case of Nirmal Kanta (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Ashok Kumar and Anotehr reported in (2008) 7 SCC 722 that on the failure of the plaintiff landlord to prove that the suit premises was sublet for consideration, no decree for eviction can be granted, and therefore, it has been argued that present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Having heard learned advocate for the defendant Nos.1 &
2. The following facts are admitted.
(i) The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit premises.
Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined (ii) The suit property is given on rent to defendant No.1.
(iii) Defendant No.1 has come forward with a case that he is partner in which defendant Nos.2 to 4 are assisting/helping the defendant No.1 in the business.
(iv) The defendant No.1 has not produced any partnership deed with respect to the suit property.
(v) In the MOU produced vide Exhibit-48, it has been stated that in Uma Tea Trading Partnership Firm defendant Nos.2 to 4 being other partners can do business.
9. Therefore, the defendant No.1 has come forward with a case that there is partnership firm in the name of Uma Tea Trading Company, defendant No.1 has neither produced any partnership deed, nor there are any documents to suggest that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the partners of partnership firm and are assisting/helping defendant No.1 in the said partnership firm.
10. Moreover, MOU produced vide Exhibit-48 clearly states that the plaintiff has permitted to defendant Nos.2 to 4 to do business in the suit premises as partners of the Uma Tea Trading Company. The said MOU produced vide Exhibit-48 clearly states that defendant No.1 shall hand over the possession of the Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined suit premises to the plaintiff for demolition of the premises, as the premises were very old and are required for reconstruction and the plaintiff shall hand over the possession of the premises after the new construction is completed to defendant No.1 and that the rent will be the same as fixed in the standard rent applicaion. It has been stated in the said MOU that the possession of the suit property will be handed over to defendant No.1 and in the said MOU, nowhere it has been stated that defendant No.1 is administering or managing partnership of Uma Tea Trading Company. In view of the fact that the said MOU states that the partners of Uma Tea Trading Company can do business in the suit premises, nowhere suggested that defendant Nos.2 to 4 can do independent business in the suit premises.
11, Moreover, in cross-examination of the plaintiff, vide Exhibit-52 and the supplementary affidavit Exhibit-66, it has been stated that at the time of purchase of the suit property only defendant No.1 is the tenant of the suit premises.
12. Moreover, if the oral evidence of defendant No.2 filed vide Exhibit-81 is considered, defendant No.1 has admitted that he had applied to change the address of sales tax number on 28.12.1999 of Uma Tea Trading Company, in the cross-
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
examination he has also admitted that Uma Tea Trading Company was a proprietory concerned and has admitted that in the standard rent applicaion No.138/88, that was filed by defendant No.1 that she alone was the applicant in the said application and that while filing standard rent application produced vide Exhibit-32, defendant No.1 has not mentioned that the suit property was given on rent to partnership firm, it has also been admitted in the deposition of defendant No.1 that rent receipt was also issued in the name of defendant No.1 in individual capacity and not of partner of Uma Tea Trading Company.
13. Moreover, defendant No.2 in his cross-examination has also admitted that the address of Dhanlaxmi Trading Company and Kameshwar Trading Company is that of suit premises and that defendant No.3 was occupying the suit premises and doing business in the name of Dhanlaxmi Trading Company and VAT Number of said Dhanlaxmi Trading Company has been issued at the address of suit premises and even in the Sales Tax Certificate, the main address of the business of Dhanlaxmi Trading Company has been shown as the suit premises. Moreover, the said defendant has also admitted that defendant No.4 is occupying the suit premises and doing business in the name of Kameshwar Trading Company and defendant No.4 is Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined properitory of the said firm and defendant No.4 being properitor of Kameshwar Trading Company has applied to get new registration number in the Corporation in the year 2001 and the address of the suit premises has been shown in the application. Moreover, it has been admitted that the address of the suit premises has been mentioned in the Certificate of Shop and Establishment of Kameshwar Trading Company. In the said cross-examination, the defendant No.2 has also admitted that defendant Nos.3 & 4 doing business independently in the suit premises. Therefore, looking to the above referred facts and documents, it is crystal clear that defendant No.1 while filing standard rent application has nowhere stated that defendant No.1 doing business in the suit premises as partner of Uma Tea Trading Company and that Uma Tea Trading Company partnership firm has been given the suit premises on rent.
14. Moreover, there are no documentary proof to prove that Uma Tea Trading Company is a partnership firm and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are partners of Uma Tea Tradng Company. On the contrary, there are documentary evidence to support the fact that Uma Tea Trading Company is a properitory firm of defendant No.2. Moreover, documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, more particularly, document Nos.34 to 39, 42 to 44, 48, 67 to 73, 112, 118 and 124 to 138 clearly prove that the suit Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined property is occupied by defendant No.2 as a proprietor of Uma Tea Trading Company and that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are doing independent business in the name of Dhanlaxmi and Kameshwar Trading Company, and thereafter, defendant No.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant Nos.2 to 4, there is nothing on record to establish that defendant No.1 is occupying the suit premises as a tenant of the premises.
15. With respect to the MOU produced vide Exhibit-48 in the cross examination plaintiff has admitted that "it is true that an MOU dated 08.01.2011 is executed, it has been agreed in the MOU that other partners of Uma Tea Trading Company partnership firm can do business was agreed", but there is nothing on record to prove that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are partners of Uma Tea Trading Company. The evidence that has come forward clearly suggests that there is no partnership firm. Moreover, even as per the MOU produced vide Exhibit-48 the same also suggested that the possession of the suit property was with defendant No.1 as the adminstrator of Uma Tea Trading Company and the possession will be handed over to defendant No.1 and the said MOU does not state anything that the said is accepted by and on behalf of Uma Tea Trading Company and the said MOU is signed by defendant No.1 in her individual capacity, therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the said Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined suit and the first appellate Court has affirmed the suit.
16. With respect to the judgment that has been relied on by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 is that Nirmal Kanta (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Ashok Kumar and Anotehr reported in (2008) 7 SCC 722, in the present case, there is a clear evidence that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are doing independent busines in the suit premises. Moreover, in the facts of the said case, which had come on recod that tenant had not parted with exclusive possession of the room can be only allowed the sub tenant to operate his feet- driven sewing machine from a portion of the room and that for the purpose of assisting the tenant in his cloath business and in this background the Court had held that two ingredients were necessary so far as subletting was concern (i) parting with possession and (ii) monetary consideration.
17. In the present case, it has been proved beyond doubt that exclusive possession of the suit premises has been handed over by defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 to 4. Moreover, as held in the case of Bharat Sales Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1998 (3) SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that it would be difficult fo the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement orr understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to hom the poperty had been sub-let had paid monetary considertion t the tenant. Since, payment of monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by the affirmative evidence and the Court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises weer sub-let. Therefore, as in the present case exclusive possession was established. It would not be inpermissible for the Court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered into with the monetary consideration in mind. The transaction in the present case is of sub-letting between the tenantt and the sub-tenant and there cannot be furnished direct evidence in every case. In this case, it has been established by the plaintiff as a fact that the tenant has parted with the possession of the suit premises and defendant Nos.2 to 4 have exclusive possession of the premises, and therefore, the Court can draw an inference that the transaction must have been entered into for monetary consideration.
18. Considering the submissions made and after examining the findings of the Court on the issue raised in the suit and upon examination of the order of the Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned advocate for the defendant is Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the findings recorded by the Court below. Not only that the learned advocate for the defendant is unable to show that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is without any reasons and against the provisions of law.
19. 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 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 Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 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.
20. 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 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 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 Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/400/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
21. 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 tenant has sublet and non-user under section-13(1)(e) and under section-13(1)(k) 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 revisional jurisdiction.
22. 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 15 of 15 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:08:57 IST 2025