Gujarat High Court
Mohammad Abdulrehman Dariyal vs Dr. Sadaf Nazimuddin Saiyad on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28 of 2023
================================================================
MOHAMMAD ABDULREHMAN DARIYAL & ANR.
Versus
DR. SADAF NAZIMUDDIN SAIYAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TARAK DAMANI(6089) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MEET G RAVAL(10630) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Revision Application has been filed under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment and
decree passed by 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Regular
Civil Suit No.446 of 2016, whereby the Civil Suit filed under
section-6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been decreed by an
order dated 01.04.2022, with a direction to hand over the disputed
property to the plaintiff within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before
15.04.2022.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their original status as that in the suit.
3. Brief facts in the present Revision Application are that the
plaintiff filed suit under section-6 of the Specific Relief Act on the
ground that the defendants entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff whereby the monthly rent of agreement was Rs.6000/- per
month and the tenure of the agreement was 5 years i.e. 01.06.2013 to
30.05.2018 and that the plaintiff had started Phisiotherapy laboratory
and clinic and has made repair of Rs.5,00,000/- for the same and it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the case of the plaintiff that the defendans have illegally
dispossessed the plaintiff from the premises on 31.01.2016, and
therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit under section-6 of the Specific
Relief Act. The trial Court framed following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she was put in possession of
the suit property on 01/06/2013 by the defendants for a period of five
years as licensee?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is dispossessed without
her consent of suit property otherwise than in due course of law?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff's suit is filed within prescribed time limit
as provided under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?
(iv) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by non
joinder of necessary party?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
(vi) What order and decree?
4. The plaintiff entered the witness box, vide Exhibit-31 and
witnesses of the plaintiff were examined, vide Exhibit-114 & 110.
The defendnat No.1 entered the witness box, vide Exhibit-120 and
after considering the oral evidence and documentary evidence the
trial Court decreed the said suit and declared that the plaintiff is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
entitled to get the possession of the rented premises and the
defendants were directed to put the plaintiff in the premises and
restrained the defendants from creating any kind of third party
interest in the property for a period of two years and four months
from handing over the possession of the suit premises to the
plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, present Civil Revision
Application is filed.
5. Learned advocate for the defendants has mainly argued that it
is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff herself has handed over
the suit premises in December-2015, and therefore, the suit that has
been filed by the plaintiff is filed on 26.07.2016, therefore, the suit is
filed after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossessing. It
has been argued by learned advocate for the defendants, that if the
entire oral evidence and documentry evidence is considered, there is
no iota of evidence that the defendants have dispossessed the
plaintiff on 31.01.2016 and the trial Court has without any evidence
decreed the said suit.
6. Learned advocate for the defendants has also argued that the
trial Court has taken into consideration disconnection of electricity
but the fact is that the said disconnection was not because of any
application given by the defendants but the fact is that the defendants
occupy part possession of the suit premises, and therefore, as there
cannot be two electricity meter in the same premises, and therefore,
the same was disconnected. Moreover, the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
defendants has also argued that the rent agreement entered into
beween the plaintiff and defendants was only for a period of one
year and fraud is committed on the defendants and the period of five
years has stated in the agreement and in view of the said fact the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is required to be
quashed and set aside.
7. Though served, none appeared for the plaintiff.
8. Having heard learned advocate for the defendants and having
considered the judgment passed by the trial Court. The following are
undisputed facts:-
(i) The rent agreement that has entered into between the plaintiff
and defendants produced vide Exhibit-34 clearly states that the said
agreement is for five years i.e. from 31.06.2013 to 30.05.2018.
(ii) A criminal complaint was also filed by the defendants which is
produced vide Exhibit-12 wherein the defendants have stated that a
fraud has been committed in execution of the agreement to sale and
the said agreement is for one year. On 03.12.2015, the defendant had
issued a notice to the plaintiff for recovery of arrears and in the said
notice, sought for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises.
(iii) The said notice has been replied by the plaintiff, vide Exhibit-
124 on 22.12.2015 wherein the plaintiff has denied the facts and has
reiterated the fact that the agreement executed between the plaintiff
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
and defendants is for five years and that the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the rent
agreement and that the defendants are not entitled for possession of
the suit premises as stated in the notice. Therefore, the facts remains
till 22.12.2015, the plaintiff had not agreed to hand over the peaceful
possession of the property.
9. From the evidence, it can be clearly stated that there were
dispute beween the plaintiff and defendants with respect to the suit
premises. The said dispute also include the dispute of arrears of rent,
electricity consumption and the fact that whether the agreement was
for a period of one year or five years, a legal notice was also issued
to the plaintiff and the said notice was replied by the plaintiff,
therefore, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff herself has handed
over the possession of the premises to the defendants. Moreover,
there is nothing on record to establish the said fact that the plaintiff
herself had handed over the possession of the premises and
abondened the premises in December-2015 and the fact remains that
till December-2015, defendant himself has issued a notice seeking
possession of the premises, therefore, the plaintiff could not have
vacated the premises herself in December-2015, in view of the said
fact, the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and the
plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff has been dispossessed without
her consent from the suit premises otherwise then in due couse of
law and that the plaintiff has proved that the suit has been filed
before the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession. In
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/28/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
view of the same, the present Civil Revision Application required to
be dismissed.
10. 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 defendants is
unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the
findings recorded by the Courts below. Not only that the learned
advocate for the defendants is unable to show that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court is without any reasons and
against the provisions of law.
11. In view of the said fact, the present Civil Revision Application
is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
