Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd. Neelaben Namdev Gaekwad vs Mahendracaur Shivsingh Saini on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 579 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 579 of 2024
================================================================
LH OF DECD. NEELABEN NAMDEV GAEKWAD & ORS.
Versus
MAHENDRACAUR SHIVSINGH SAINI & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE(1706) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2024, passed by 3 rd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, in Regular Civil Appeal No.107 of 2001, whereby the first appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2001, passed by Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.677 of 1983.
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 filed suit for eviction on the ground that the defendant is tenant in arrears and even after issuance of notice produced vide Exhibit-65, the defendant has not deposited the Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined amount of rent of arrears and even after the order has been passed in Standard Rent Application No.408 of 1983, whereby the interim rent was decided on 28.10.1983 and the defendant was directed to deposite rent as per direction contained in the order below Exhibit-5 of Standard Rent Application No.408 of 1983 and in view of the same, the trial Court held that the defendant is not enitled for protection under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and granted a decree of eviction of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.65/- as arrears of rent and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.31/- per month from the date of filing the suit till the handing over of the possession of the suit property by the defendant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Rent Court, the defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.107 of 2001 and after reappreciating the evidence the first appellate Court dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present Revision Application.
4. Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the defendant has deposited the entire arrears of rent and joint purshis is also filed by both the parties and the trial Court has not taken into consideration the said fact, and therefore, the present Revision Application is required to be admitted.
Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
5. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the counter rent receipt book produced vide Exhibit-64 which is clearly indicating that before filing of the suit the entire rent had been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, and therefore, the trial Court could not have granted a decree of eviction and the first appellate Court could not have confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6. It has also been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that if the entire judgment of the appellate Court is taken into consideration the appellate Court has clearly stated that the defendant has been depositing the rent before the trial Court from 29.10.1983 till 09.05.2024, and therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant is tenant in arrears.
7. With respect to the issue of standard rent of the suit property, it was the case of the defendant that the rent that has been claimed by the plaintiff is not the standard rent of the suit property, and therefore, the defendant filed Standard Rent Application No.408 of 1983 wherein the Court passed an interim order below Exhibit-5 on 28.10.1983, whereby the Court fixed the interim rent at the rate of Rs.20/- per month and directed the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent till Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 28.10.1983, and the Court further directed the defendant to deposit regularly the rent at the aforesaid interim rate of rent on or before 10th day of every month after 28.10.1983.
8. Per contra, learned advocate for the plainiff has argued that in the present case after the Court passed an order in Standard Rent Application No.408 of 1983 and directed the defendant to deposit rent after 28.12.2005, he has deposited rent on 31.12.2012, 26.07.2017 and 28.02.2022, and therefore, even after the defendant was given an opportunity to deposit the entire amount of arrears by order dated 28.10.1983. The defendant has neither deposited the said arrears nor has been regular in paying the said amount of rent. In view of the same, present Civil Revision Application is required to be rejected.
9. It has also been argued by learned advocate for the plaintiff that in Execution Petition No.222 of 2024 which was filed on 02.09.2024, the Executing Court has already handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on 30.07.2025, and therefore, also the present Civil 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 and confirmed by the appellate Court, the following are the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined admitted facts:-
(i) There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant.
(ii) The suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears.
(iii) On factual aspect, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the notice issued vide Exhibit-63 is a valid notice.
(iv) After issuance of notice, the defendant has raised issue of standard rent and by an order dated 28.10.1983, the Court has decided Rs.20/- as interim rent and directed the defendant to deposit arrears till 28.10.1983 and directed the defendant to deposit rent at the aforesaid interim rate of Rs.20/- on or before 10th day of every month after 28.10.1983, in this background if the payments that have been deposited by the defendant are taken into consideration, the defendant has paid the following amount of rent before the learned trial Court, which is as under:-
Date Amount
deposited (Rs.)
29.10.1983 20=00
11.11.1983 20=00
16.12.1983 20=00
04.01.1984 20=00
10.02.1984 20=00
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
09.03.1984 20=00
25.04.1984 20=00
14.05.1984 20=00
21.06.1984 20=00
10.08.1984 20=00
11.09.1984 20=00
16.10.1984 20=00
21.11.1984 20=00
18.12.1984 20=00
21.01.2985 20=00
19.02.1985 20=00
19.03.1985 20=00
11.04.1985 20=00
22.08.1985 40=00
29.08.1985 20=00
20.09.1985 20=00
23.10.1985 20=00
19.11.1985 20=00
20.12.1985 20=00
16.01.1986 20=00
19.02.1986 20=00
25.03.1986 20=00
25.04.1986 20=00
21.07.1986 40=00
05.09.1986 40=00
23.10.1986 20=00
24.11.1986 20=00
29.12.1986 20=00
18.03.1987 60=00
23.06.1987 60=00
14.10.1987 120=00
13.01.1988 60=00
02.04.1988 40=00
27.06.1988 40=00
08.08.1988 40=00
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
27.10.1988 60=00
16.05.1989 60=00
17.07.1989 40=00
15.09.1989 60=00
24.10.1989 20=00
05.02.1990 80=00
13.07.1990 40=00
10.12.1990 80=00
15.02.1991 40=00
07.05.1991 60=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 60=00
Date not readable 60=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 60=00
Date not readable 20=00
Date not readable 80=00
Date not readable 80=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 60=00
Date not readable 60=00
Date not readable 40=00
Date not readable 120=00
Date not readable 80=00
06.08.1997 120=00
14.05.1998 500=00
20.07.1998 500=00
03.08.1998 500=00
12.10.1998 500=00
09.11.1998 500=00
04.01.1999 500=00
08.03.1999 500=00
12.04.1999 500=00
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
14.06.1999 186=00
09.12.1999 372=00
17.11.2000 620=00
11. In appeal filed on 11.06.2001 and since 2001 the defendant has paid the amount of rent, which is as under:-
Date Amount
deposited (Rs.)
27.07.2001 372=00
14.02.2003 713=00
20.01.2004 372=00
20.01.2005 372=00
28.12.2005 527=00
26.07.2017 2604=00
28.02.2022 1860=00
09.05.2024 5,000=00
12. Therefore, it can be clearly established that even after the issuance of notice, the defendant has neither deposited amount of arrears though the defendant has raised grievance that the defedant has already paid the entire amount, but there was no cognate evidence produced by the defendant to justify the said fact. The defendant has not deposited the entire amount of arrears at the time of issuance of notice and thereafter there was an opportunity to the defendant, for depositing the rent at the time the order dated 28.10.1983 was passed, whereby the Court had directed the defendant to pay the arrears till 28.10.1983, and thereafter, regularly pay the amount of rent, but the fact remains Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined that on 29.10.1983, the defendant has deposited only Rs.20/-
and has not cleared the entire arrears of rent and the defendant has not deposited any arrears of rent from December-1981 to August-1983, even after there was a specific order that the defendant shall pay the rent regularly in the Court. The defendant has not cleared the rent after 28.12.2005, and he has deposited the rent on 31.12.2012, 26.07.2017 and 28.02.2022, therefore, it can be clearly established that the defendant is irregular in depositing the rent. The word regularly stated in section 12(3)(b) has significance of its own had enjoins payment or tender charactersed by reasonable punctuality i.e. to say one made at irregular time and intervals though the regularity contemplated may not be a punctuality, of clock-like precision and exactitude, but it must reasonably conform with substantial proximity to the sequence of times or intervals at which the rent falls due.
13. In the present case, though in the Standard Rent Application No.408 of 1983, the Court had specifically stated that the amount has to be paid on or before 10 th day of every month after 28.10.1983, but the same has not been deposited by the defendant, and therefore, the Court had no discretion to treat the irregular payments as subsequently complainace with the mandate of section 12(3)(b) irrespective of the fact if by the time Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined the judgment was pronounced on arrears of rent could have been pleaded by the defendant. Moreover, the provision of section 12(3)(b) have been constituting to be a mandatory provisions which have been put strictly complied with. Moreover, though the defendant has taken a contention that the amount of rent by way of Exhibit-64, the entire amount of rent has been deposited and the plaintiff has not issued rent receipts, but the fact remains that the defendant has not produced any document to prove the said fact.
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 tenant is tenant in arrears, 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.
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 Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/579/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined 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.
16. In view of the oder passed in the main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Sep 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 00:12:57 IST 2025