Laxmansinh Rambahadursinh vs Shri Nagarvel Na Hanumanji Maharaj- A ...

Gujarat High Court

Laxmansinh Rambahadursinh vs Shri Nagarvel Na Hanumanji Maharaj- A ... on 30 September, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/CRA/443/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 443 of 2025


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                  Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No
                                                                                             

                      ==========================================================
                                        LAXMANSINH RAMBAHADURSINH
                                                   Versus
                             SHRI NAGARVEL NA HANUMANJI MAHARAJ- A TRUST & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR MB RANA(2760) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR KUNJAL D PANDYA(2259) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                          Date : 30/09/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2025, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2022, below Exhibit-19, by the Appellate Bench No.2 Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree, passed by Small Causes Court No.9, in HRP Suit No.262 of 2016.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined

3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are that the plaintiff being the landlord of the suit property, filed a suit against the defendant on the ground that the suit property has been given on rent to defendant no.1, at a monthly rent of Rs.15/-, and a rent note to that effect has been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated 26.08.1974, which is produced vide Exhibit-93, and the said Civil Suit was filed for eviction of the defendants on the ground that the defendant no.1 is a tenant in arrears, and that the defendant no.1 has sublet the suit property to defendant no.2. The plaintiff had examined himself vide Exhibit 91. The defendant no.2 had examined himself vide Exhibit-125, and defendant no.1 had examined himself vide Exhibit 131. The Trial Court had framed issues vide Exhibit-83 as under:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant has not paid rent for continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit and has become tenant in arrears of rent?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant no.1 has illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant no.1?

3. Whether the suit notice is legal and valid and legally served to the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

5. What order and decree?"

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined

4. After considering the oral evidence and documentary evidence and giving findings on all issues, the Trial Court passed a judgment and decree of eviction on the ground that the plaintiff has proved that, defendant No.1 has illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant No.2, and therefore a decree of eviction was passed, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act"). Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant no.2 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2022, and after re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal, hence the present Revision Application.

5. The learned advocate for the defendant no.2 has mainly argued that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the original sale agreement, dated 02.06.2006, which has been executed in favor of defendant no.2 is not by defendant no.l, the said sale agreement is produced by Exhibit 126, which clearly shows that the suit property has been transferred to defendant no.2 by one Ram Nayan Tiwari, who is not, defendant no.1 and therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court could not have granted a decree of eviction on the ground that the defendant no.1 has sub-let the suit premises to defendant no.2.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined

6. In view of the above stated fact, it has been argued that the present civil revision application be allowed, and the judgment decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court are required to be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that, if the oral evidence of defendant no.2 is taken into consideration, there is a clear admission of the defendant no.2 that, defendant no.1 has sold the suit premises to defendant no.2. Moreover, it has also been admitted that no permission from the plaintiff trust has been obtained before the property has been transferred to defendant no.2. Therefore, it has been argued that there is a clear finding of the Court that defendant no.1 has sold the suit premises to defendant no.2, and the fact is that defendant no.2 is not a tenant of the premises.

8. Moreover, the learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that if the rent note produced vide Exhibit-93 is taken into consideration, there is a clear term in the said agreement that the defendant no.1 can make kacha/pakka construction, but in no case he can transfer or sub-let the same. Therefore, considering paragraph no.5 of the agreement produced vide Exhibit-93, the defendant no.1 could not have sold, or sublet the suit premises to a third party.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined

9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the fact remains that, the defendants have themselves admitted that the property have been sold to defendant no.2 and before the property having been sold to defendant no.2, no permission of the plaintiff has been taken by the defendant no.1. The fact also remains that as the defendant no.2 has admitted that he is in exclusive possession of the property by virtue of the sale agreement produced vide Exhibit 126, the question of defendant no.1 being in possession does not arise.

10. Though the learned advocate for the defendants has tried to advance his argument that in view of the fact that there is a sale agreement, whereby the suit property has been purchased by defendant no.2 from a third party, the Rent Court will not have the jurisdiction, the fact remains that if the entire dispute is taken into consideration, the fact remains that the plaintiff has filed a suit for eviction against the defendant no.1, who is the tenant of the suit property, and by virtue of the agreement produced vide Exhibit-93, the suit property has been given on rent to defendant no.1 and if the oral evidence of the defendants are taken into consideration, it has been clearly Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:38:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined admitted that the sale agreement has been entered into in favour of defendant no.2, therefore, the plaintiff has clearly proved that defendant no.2 is in exclusive possession of the suit property.

11. In the present case, exclusive possession of the defendant no.2 was established and therefore, it would not be impermissible for the Court to draw an inference, the transaction was entered into with a monetary consideration. The transaction in the present case is of the subletting between the tenant and the sub-tenant, and therefore, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant no.1 has sub-let the suit property to defendant no.2.

12. 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 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.

13. Therefore, on the basis of overall analysis of the material Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:38:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:38:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined on record and does not suffer any error or material irregularities. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant no.1 has sub-let the suit premises to the defendant no.2, 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 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) Further Order After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises till 31.01.2026. Stay, as prayed for, is granted if the learned advocate for the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:38:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/443/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined petitioner files an undertaking before the Registry, within a period of one week, that he will vacate the premises on or before 31.01.2026.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:38:27 IST 2025