Vasantbhai Jethabhai Kodrani vs Brahmakshatriya Gnati Panch Thru ...

Gujarat High Court

Vasantbhai Jethabhai Kodrani vs Brahmakshatriya Gnati Panch Thru ... on 9 September, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/CRA/57/2021                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 of 2021


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER                           Sd/-
                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                        Yes           No
                                                                                 ✔
                      ==========================================================
                                VASANTBHAI JETHABHAI KODRANI & ORS.
                                                Versus
                       BRAHMAKSHATRIYA GNATI PANCH THRU TRUSTEE AND PRESIDENT
                                  RAMESHBHAI JETHALAL CHHATBAR
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                      MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
                      MR SAVAN N PANDYA(5600) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 09/09/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed under Section 29(2) of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Rent Act") challenging the judgment and decree, dated 16.05.2018, passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Anjar at Kutchh, in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 2015, confirming the judgement and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge, Anjar-Kuchh in Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 2003, dated 26.02.2010.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, 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-landlord filed the suit for eviction against defendants on the ground that the defendant no.1 was a tenant in the suit properties in the month of August 1998 and the defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3 without the permission of the plaintiff and committed breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for eviction on the ground of defendant no.1, being tenant in arrears of rent and on the ground that the defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3 i.e. Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act.

4. The defendants appeared in the said suit and filed written statement vide Exhibit 28 and a contention was raised by defendant no.1 that, defendant no.1 has not sublet the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3, but the defendant nos.2 and 3 are the partners of defendant no.1 and are running their partnership firm in the name and style of Patel Tractors and Farm Equipments.

5. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit- 16 as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined "1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Defendant no. 1 is his tenant?

2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Defendant no. 1 has sub-let the suit property to Defendant nos. 2 and 3?

3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he has given a legal notice to the tenant?

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding rent amount? If yes, how much?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits? If yes, how much and from when?

6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit property from the Defendants?

7. What order and what decree?"

6. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit 20 and the witness of the plaintiff was examined vide Exhibit 44. The defendant no.1 examined himself vide Exhibit 54, defendant no.2 examined himself vide exhibit 63 and defendant no.3 examined himself vide exhibit 66 and after taking into consideration the oral evidence, documentary evidence and giving finding on all the issues, the Trial Court granted a decree of eviction. The said decree was challenged by the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined defendants by filing Regular Civil Appeal no.170 of 2015 and after re-appreciating the evidence, the Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 2003. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision application is filed.

7. Learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that it cannot be said that the defendant is tenant is arrears in view of the fact that the Trial Court had not given any direction to the defendant to deposit the rent amount within the prescribed time and in view of the fact that the defendant has already paid the entire arrears of rent, the defendant cannot be stated to be tenant in arrears and therefore, the Trial Court could not have decreed the said suit on the ground of defendant being tenant in arrears.

8. Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that there is nothing on record that has been proved by plaintiff, that the suit property has been sublet by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3, and the fact that defendant no.1 is doing business in partnership with defendant nos.2 and 3, the said fact cannot be considered to be subletting the suit property and the Trial Court could not have granted a judgement and Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined decree of eviction and in view the same it has been argued that the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.170 of 2015 is required to be quashed and set aside and the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the fact remains that after issuance of notice produced vide Exhibits 37 and 39, the defendant has not paid any amount of rent. Moreover, the rent that was due was from August 1998 to August 2003 and the defence that has been taken by the defendant is that the defendant has already paid the rent but the receipts were not issued by the plaintiff. But the fact remains that there is no documentary evidence to support the fact that the defendant has ever paid rent. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, even after issuance of statutory notice under Section 12 of the Rent Act, the defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent. Moreover, even at the time of framing of the issues, the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be interfered in view of the fact that the the issue that the defendant has already paid the rent by cash and no receipts have been issued is a factual aspect which has already been considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and the same cannot be Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined considered in the Civil Revision Application.

10. With respect to the fact that the defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property, the defendant has not produced any document to show and suggest that there is a partnership between defendant no.1, with defendant nos.2 and 3 and that defendant nos.2 and 3 are doing business in the suit premises as partners along with defendant no.1 and therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly granted a decree of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act.

11. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, the fact remains that the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is for eviction of the defendants on the ground that defendant no.1 being the tenant of the suit property is tenant in arrears and the fact that defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff has sought for eviction under Section 13(1)(e).

12. If the entire pleadings are taken into consideration, there is no dispute that defendant no.1 was the tenant in the suit property and it is not the case of defendant that, along with defendant no.1, defendant nos.2 and 3 were also the tenants of Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined the plaintiff. The fact remains that the possession of the suit property was given by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 as a tenant and defendant no.1 was occupying and possessing the suit property as tenant of the plaintiff. The fact remains that defendant nos.2 and 3 have never been given the suit property on rent by the plaintiff and therefore, defendant nos.2 and 3 are not tenants of the plaintiff and therefore, the fact that defendant nos.2 and 3 are occupying the suit premises is clearly admitted by defendant no.1. Therefore, the fact that defendant nos.2 and 3 are in possession of the premises along with defendant no.1 is clearly admitted by the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff has proved the fact that defendant nos.2 and 3 are also in possession of the premises along with defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has taken a defence that defendant nos.2 and 3 are doing business in the suit premises as partners of defendant no.1, but the fact remains that no iota of evidence has been produced by defendant no1 or defendant nos.2 and 3 to show and prove the fact that there is a partnership agreement between the defendants nor has any of the defendants produced any bank account details and or any other documents to prove that there exists a partnership between defendants and therefore, the burden was on the defendants who have come forward with the case that there is a partnership between the defendants and the defendants are doing business together as partners.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined

13. In view of the said fact, it has come on record that defendant nos.2 and 3 are third parties and the fact that there are no documentary evidence to support the fact that defendant no.1 is doing business with defendant nos.2 and 3 as partners and therefore, the plaintiff has proved that defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3.

14. This Court is of the opinion that no genuine partnership exists between the defendants and defendant no.1 has raised a plea of partnership solely to circumvent the allegation of subletting. From the documentary evidence, it can be clearly established that the conclusive possession of the suit premises is with defendant Nos.2 and 3 and that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are operating their business in the suit premises as though he was the owner of the premises. The documentary evidence also support the fact that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in-charge of the exclusive control of the alleged partnership. In this circumstances, a clear case of subletting stand established. The fact emerging from the evidence on record lead to an unfailing conclusion that the original tenant has handed over the exclusive possession to defendant No.2.

15. With respect to the fact that the defendant no.1 is a tenant in arrears, the fact remains that vide Exhibits 37 and 39 Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined a statutory notice under Section 12 of the Rent Act had already been issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 and though the defendant no.1 has taken a contention that he has already paid the rent, but the fact remains that the onus to show the payment of rent was on defendant no.1, though the defendant no.1 has come forward with the allegation that the rent was paid, but no receipt was issued, there is no explanation whatsoever coming forward from the defendant no.1 as to why the rent was not paid by Money Order and therefore, the oral evidence of defendant no.1 in regard to payment of rent cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the onus was on the defendant no.1 to prove the fact that defendant no.1 has paid the rent before the issuance of statutory notice under Section 12 of the Rent Act and that defendant has paid the said rent before the first date of hearing.

16. 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 Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 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.

17. 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 the suit premises 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/57/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined

18. 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.

Sd/-

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 01:04:03 IST 2025