Stelaben Y. Fardel vs Director / Administrator
2021 Latest Caselaw 14805 Guj

     C/CRA/575/2019                                        ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
      R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.                         575 of 2019

=======================================================
                   STELABEN Y. FARDEL
                         Versus
                DIRECTOR / ADMINISTRATOR
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
 for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=======================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                            Date : 22/09/2021

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. The applicants have filed this Civil Revision

Application under the provision of the Bombay Rent

Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

inter alia praying for quashment of the order

dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd

Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular

Civil Appeal No.36/2007 and the order dated

19.03.2007 passed by the learned Small Causes

Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.406/2001.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the

present application are as under,

2.1 The respondent herein, who is original

plaintiff filed Rent Suit No.406/2001 against

the applicants herein before the court of

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara,

wherein it has been stated that the husband

of the respondent no.1 and father of the

respondent no.1/2 viz., Yunus A. Fardel was

serving in the institute of plaintiff from

the year 1958 upto his supperannuation i.e.

21.09.1993 and during his service, he was

allotted the quarter (suit premises), however

after his retirement, he was asked to

handover the possession of the suit premises

but he refused and in the meantime, he died

on 20.02.2001 and, hence, his heirs i.e. the

respondents herein can be said to be

trespasser after the sad demise of Yunus A.

Fardel.

2.2 However despite making several requests, they

did not handover the vacant possession of the

suit premises, which led to filing of

aforesaid rent suit, where after affording

opportunity to both the sides, the learned

Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara, by an

order dated 19.03.2007, was pleased to allow

the said Suit and directed the respondents -

original defendants to handover the vacant

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

and peaceful possession of the suit premises

to the plaintiff within two months from the

date of said order and it was also directed

to pay Rs.150/- per month to the plaintiff

towards mense profit from the date of the

said suit till handing over the possession of

the suit premises.

2.3 Against the aforesaid order, the respondents

- original defendants filed Regular Civil

Appeal No.36/2007 before the learned District

Court, Vadodara under Order 41 of the Civil

Procedure Code, 1908.

2.4 However there also, after appreciating the

documents available on record and after

affording opportunity to both sides, the

learned 2nd Additional District Judge,

Vadodara, by an order dated 19.09.2019, was

pleased to dismiss the said Appeal and

thereby uphold the order of learned Judge,

Small Causes Court, Vadodara. Therefore, the

present Civil Revision Application is filed

before this Court challenging the aforesaid

orders.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Majmudar appearing for

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

the applicants.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that

both the learned Courts below have committed grave

error in passing impugned orders. It is also

submitted that the respondent - original plaintiff

was collecting rent directly from the salary of

the applicant, however, both the learned Courts

below have failed to consider the documents

produced below Exhs.63-69. It is submitted that

both the Courts below have failed to consider the

conditions of the agreement produced at Exh.43

because Condition NO.5 of the said agreement

provides for re-allotment of the quarter. It is,

therefore, urged that this application be allowed

and the impugned orders of both the Courts below

be quashed and set aside.

5. I have heard learned advocate for the applicant

and also perused the documents placed on record.

From the records, it is clear that the husband of

the applicant no.1 was serving with the respondent

- Institute and, hence, he was allotted quarter,

however after the retirement, he was to vacate the

suit premises, which he did not vacate and after

his sad demise, the applicants herein, who are his

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

legal heirs, were enjoying the possession of the

suit premises without payment of any rent. It is

also revealed from the record that the respondent

- Institute had made request to the husband of the

applicant no.1 to handover the vacant and peaceful

possession of the suit premises as also to the

applicant no.1 but instead of vacating the suit

premises, they filed Rent Suit No.138/2001 before

the Small Causes Court, Vadodara. Thus considering

all these facts, the Small Causes Court, Vadodara

allowed the suit filed by the respondent -

original plaintiff and directed the applicants -

original defendants to handover the vacant and

peaceful possession of the suit premises and the

said order has rightly been confirmed by the

learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal

filed by the respondent herein and thus, there are

concurrent findings of facts, which do not require

any interference by this Court.

6. Further, from the record, it is revealed that the

husband of the applicant no.1 retired from the

services on 1993 and was enjoying the possession

of the suit premises till 20.02.2001 i.e. till his

death and then, the applicants herein were

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

enjoying the possession of the suit premises.

Thereafter, the Rent Suit was filed in the year

2001, which was allowed in the year 2007 and then,

Regular Civil Appeal was filed, which was allowed

in the year 2019. Thus all these years, the

respondents are enjoying the possession of the

suit premises without any payment of rent. Even

the present Civil Revision Application is filed

before this Court in the month of December, 2019

and till date, it has been adjourned from time to

time and no stay has been granted in favour of the

applicants and despite that, they are enjoying the

quarter. Thus all these years without any stay

granted in favour of the applicants, they are

enjoying the possession of the suit premises.

7. It appears from the material available on record

that the husband of the applicant no.1 was

allotted the suit premises by executing an

agreement on 08.05.1964, however on attaining the

age of supperannuation, he retired from the

services on 21.09.1993 and then, he passed away on

20.02.2001. It appears from the record that the

services of Oliver Christopher were terminated on

09.07.1994 and on the basis of the compromise

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

arrived at between the parties in the proceeding

pending before the Labour Court, he was reinstated

in service on 03.07.2006, however from the letter

dated 05.06.2010, copy of which was placed on

record before the Appellate Court by the

respondent herein, it is revealed that the

applicant no.1 has been relieved from the services

w.e.f. 05.06.2010 by the Methodist Technical

Institute.

Thus from the above facts, it is clear that

the husband of the applicant no.1 was allotted the

suit premises by executing the agreement on

08.05.1964 while he was in serving as tenant of

the Institute and on attaining the age of

supperannuation, he retired from the service on

21.09.1993 and as per the condition of the

agreement executed with the husband of the

applicant no.1. the suit premises was allotted

till his retirement and thus after his retirement

from the service i.e. on 21.09.1993, the husband

of the applicant can be said to be ceased to be a

service tenant in respect of the suit premises. It

is also evident from the record that there is no

agreement between the applicants and the

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

respondent in respect of the suit premises and

thus, it is clear that the suit premises was not

allotted to the applicants and they were tenant in

respect of the suit premises. Therefore the

findings given and the conclusion arrived at by

both the Courts below are just and proper and do

not require any interference in the facts of the

present case.

8. It is well settled that while exercising

revisional powers, the High Court cannot

appreciate or reappreciate the evidence. At this

stage, this Court would like to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Lachhman Dass Vs. Santokh Singh, reported in 1995

AIR SCW 2766, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held as under,

"7. The first question that arises for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in re-assessing the value of the evidence and substitute his own conclusions in respect of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, in exercise of his revisional powers vested in the High Court under Section 15(6) of the Act. In the present case as discussed earlier the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

against the respondent on the ground mentioned under Section 13 of the Act against which the respondent preferred an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Here it may be noted that the Act does not provide a second appeal against the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority under sub- section (2) of Section 15. The Act, however, under sub-section (6) of Section 15 makes a provision for revision to the High Court against any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. Thus, the Legislature has provided for a single appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and no further appeal has been provided under the Act. The Legislature has, however, made a provision for discretionary remedy of revision which is indicative of the fact that the Legislature has created two jurisdictions different from each other in scope and content in the form of an appeal and revision. That being so the two jurisdictions - one under an appeal and the other under revision cannot be said to be one and the same but distinct and different in the ambit and scope. Precisely stated, an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings

C/CRA/575/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and reaporeciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by a decision of this Court in State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co. [1965 (1) SCR 601 at 604 ]."

9. Therefore in view of the aforesaid ratio laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision and considering the facts of the present

case, this Court is of the view that no error is

committed by both the Courts below while passing

impugned orders, which do not require any

interference.

10. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application is

rejected.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

Gautam