Gujarat High Court
Ravi Transport Company vs Yogesh Chandulal Chunilal Maheta on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 150 of 2017
=====================================================
RAVI TRANSPORT COMPANY & 2 other(s)
Versus
YOGESH CHANDULAL CHUNILAL MAHETA & 1 other(s)
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3
DHWANI P LAKHANI(8222) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 13/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this revision application under
Section 29(2) of the Rent Act, the applicant has
challenged the order dated 9.12.2016 passed by
3rd Additional District Judge, Bharuch in
Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2013 whereby he
has confirmed the judgment and decree dated
25.10.2013 and 23.11.2013 passed by learned 6th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in
Regular Civil Suit No.485 of 2003.
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
2. The facts giving rise to the present civil
revision application are as under :-
2.1 The present applicant is the original
defendant whereas the present defendant is the
original plaintiff. It was the case of the
plaintiff before the trial Court that property
bearing survey No.1982 was let by the deceased
father of the plaintiff and survey No.1983 was
let by the deceased grandfather of the plaintiff
and after the demise of father and grand father
of the plaintiffs, they had become the owner of
the said property by way of will and there names
were entered into Government record. The
defendants who are the tenant of the property
were not using said property since last four
years from the date of filing of the suit. As
the defendants were carrying on their business
at the address shown in the cause-title at some
other place than the property in question since
last four years and therefore, the suit property
was lying closed and unused for more than six
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
months without any reasonable cause, though the
defendants were paying the rent through cheque.
As the defendant had acquired better and
specious place, the plaintiffs informed the
defendants to hand over the suit premises but as
the respondents did not hand over the suit
premises to the plaintiffs as the suit premises
was in good locality and was rented at a lower
rent. With a view to get a huge amount against
the said properties, they were not handing over
the suit property to the plaintiffs and hence,
the plaintiffs preferred the suit for eviction
on the ground of non use of the suit premises.
2.2 After following the due procedure
prescribed under the Rent Act and after leading
the evidence ultimately, the learned 6th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch partly
allowed the suit vide order dated 25.10.2013 and
directed the defendants to hand over the vacant,
peaceful and actual possession of the suit
premises within a period of 30 days from the
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
order. The decree dated 23.11.2003 was drawn
accordingly.
2.3 The aforesaid judgment and decree was
further challenged by way of appeal being RCA
No. 78 of 2003 which also came to be dismissed
vide order dated 9.12.2016.
2.4 It is against those concurrent findings
the present civil revision application is
preferred.
3. Considering the limited scope of interference in
this civil revision application, learned
advocate Mr. Kashyap Joshi appearing for the
applicant mainly made submissions on the
following two points :-
(i) requirement of Section 13(i)(k) is not
fulfilled as the premises is not only
required to be not in use but for which
there should be a reasonable cause as well
and the plaintiffs have failed to show any
reasonable cause though the premises was
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
lying vacant since last four years is
admitted.
(ii) Submissions on part of learned
advocate Mr. Kashyap Joshi was that the
requirement of Section 23 of the Rent Act
were not satisfy as the premises in
question was not in good repair which
compelled the defendant to shift the
premises else were and therefore, as the
plaintiff failed to keep the premises in
good repair the defendant had to shift at
some other place to carry on the business.
4. In respect of aforesaid two submissions, this
Court specifically asked learned advocate Mr.
Kashyap Joshi that whether these two contentions
were taken before either the trial Court or the
Appellate Court and whether any of these
submissions forms the part of their reply or
appeal memo or not. However, despite making
efforts, learned advocate Mr. Kashyap Joshi
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
could not point out that any of the aforesaid
submissions were ever made before the trial
Court or appellate Court.
5. The trial Court or Appellate Court is expected
to consider only the submissions which were
advanced before the concerned Court. If the
submissions were not made before the Courts and
contentions which are raised before this Court
for the first time were not raised before the
trial Court or Appellate Court. It cannot be
said that the trial Court or Appellate Court has
committed any error of law while adjudicating
the issue.
6. Considering the fact that there are concurrent
findings of fact recorded by both the Courts as
well as considering the fact that the
contentions raised before this Court were raised
for the first time as well as on perusal of the
record, this Court does not find any error
committed by the trial Court and Appellate Court
in partly allowing the suit and dismissing the
C/CRA/150/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023
appeal, the present civil revision application
stands dismissed.
7. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
