Gujarat High Court
Pravinsinh Doshubha Jadeja vs Shantilal Narendra Makwana on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2005
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2005
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2005
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PRAVINSINH DOSHUBHA JADEJA
Versus
SHANTILAL NARENDRA MAKWANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JENIL M. SHAH(772) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 10.11.2003, passed by the Joint District Judge,
9th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1990
whereby, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the
plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1989 passed
by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of
1990 (Rent Suit No.2 of 1984).
2. Parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Court.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Revision Application are that
the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of
the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the
plot, admeasuring 151 sq yd, situated at Mill-para, Street No.27, opposite
to Kanta Street Vikas Gruh Road at Rajkot. On front part of the said plot,
there are two shops, admeasuring 15X10 ft, which are in possession of
the plaintiff and are not rented to the defendant. However, except these
two shops, the open land and remaining land is given on rent to the
defendants for Rs.200/- per month. In view of the fact that the plaintiff
requires suit premises for his bona fide requirement, Civil Suit No.2 of
1984, was filed for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the
plaintiff required suit premises for "reasonable and bona fide
requirement". It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant has made
permanent alternation in the premises and, therefore, plaintiff has also
sought eviction under the provisions of Section 13(1)(g) of the the
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Rent
Act', for short). It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendants have
acted contrary to the provisions of Clause (O) of Section 108 of the
Transfer of Property Act and in the said suit, the power of attorney - rent
collector of the plaintiff examined himself vide Exh.41. The defendant
examined himself vide Exh.56. The trial Court framed the issues vide
Exh.12, which reads thus:
(1) Whether the plaintiff prove that he is reasonable and
bonafide required the suit premises for occupation by
himself and members of his family for constructing the
residential house as alleged in plaint ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
(2) If it is so, whether the greater hardship will be caused
to whom by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it in
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the parties ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have
without the landlords consent given in writing erected on the
premises any permanent structure or alteration as alleged in
the plaint?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have
committed any act contrary to the provisions of clause (O) of
the Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act as alleged in
plaint ?
(5) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ?
(6) Whether what is the standard rent of the suit premises?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises from the defendants
on the grounds as alleged in plaint ?
(8) What order and decree?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, trial Court
dismissed the said suit and the said judgment passed by the Rent Court,
was challenged by the plaintiff by way of Civil Appeal No.2 of 1989,
which was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present
revision application by the original plaintiff - petitioner herein.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner - original plaintiff submitted
that in the said suit the plaintiff had sought eviction of the suit premises,
on the ground that, the plaintiff reasonably and bona fidely required the
suit premises for occupation for himself and members of his family for
constructing residential house and on the ground that without permission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
of the landlord - plaintiff, the defendants have erected permanent
structure and has made alternation in the suit premises.
4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner - original plaintiff has mainly
tried to canvass his argument on bona fide requirement stating that there
are five members in the family of the plaintiff and out of them, three are
unmarried. He submitted that at the time of filing the suit, plaintiff was
serving in Railway Department and residing in Railway Quarters. It is the
case of the plaintiff that there is another premises belonging to the
plaintiff, which is situated at Mil-para area at Rajkot where the sons of
the plaintiff reside and the said house is consisting of one room and
kitchen and as the plaintiff is likely to retire from services and as other
two sons of the plaintiff have become major and that the suit premises
owned at Mil-para area, Rajkot is not sufficient to accommodate all the
family members, the plaintiff required suit premises for his residential use
and that the plaintiff is reasonably and bona fidely required the suit for his
personal use and occupation.
4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner - original plaintiff has tried to
canvass his argument also on the ground that as the suit premises is
required for constructing residential house for the family members of the
plaintiff and as the plaintiff does not have sufficient residential
accommodation for himself and members of his family, defendants are
required to be evicted from the suit premises. So that the plaintiff can
reasonably and bona fidely use the suit property for his personal use. To
substantiate his arguments, learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on
following judgments:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
(i) 2025 INSC 564, Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His Lr. Atul
Kumar Aggarwal vs. Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. Lrs.
And others;
(ii) 2025 INSC 271, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan and
others; and
(iii) 2015 (0) Supreme (MP) 501 : 2015 (3) MPLJ 181,
Ghanshyam Chandil vs. Ramkatori Agrawal
4.4 With respect to the contention of the plaintiff that that the
defendant has made permanent structure and alteration in the suit
premises, plaintiff has come forward with the case that the defendant has
made entrance gate in the rear door without obtaining permission or
consent of landlord and thereby they have damaged the suit property. It
has also been argued by learned advocate for the plaintiff that the
adjoining plot is in possession of defendants and the defendants have put
entrance door in the wall and made material alteration in the suit premises
and it has been argued that taking into consideration oral evidence and the
documentary evidence, the plaintiff had proved that the defendant has
made permanent alteration in the suit premises whereby the structure of
the suit property was damaged and that the said alteration was in the
nature of permanent alteration in the premises and, therefore, trial Court
and appellate Court could not have dismissed the suit and in that view of
the matter it has been argued that present Civil Revision Application is
required to be allowed.
5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent (original defendant) - tenant
has mainly argued that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
property is required by the plaintiff for his bona fide and reasonable
requirement. Learned advocate for the respondent - tenant has argued
that it has come on record that the plaintiff is also possessing ownership
of plot, which is situated at Mavadi at Rajkot and which is also suitable to
construct residential house. Learned advocate for the respondent (original
defendant)- tenant has also argued that in the cross-examination plaintiff
has also admitted that plaintiff can use another plot for making additional
room and there is suitability to built upper storied on the residential house
belonging to the plaintiff. Moreover, in the cross-examination, plaintiff
has also admitted that open piece of land admeasuring 15X10 ft which is
behind two shops of the suit plot is in possession of the plaintiff and the
plaintiff can use the same to build additional rooms and plaintiff can built
two storied upper shops and adjoining piece of land for residential house.
5.2 Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that from oral
evidence of the plaintiff, it can be clearly established that the premises
which are already in occupation of the plaintiff are sufficient for making
additional residential accommodation for himself and members of the
family of the plaintiff and it has been argued that there is nothing on
record that the property which plaintiff already owns and property which
is already in possession of his sons is not sufficient and that required
permission cannot be obtained for constructing additional rooms and
additional construction in the said premises which are already in
possession of plaintiff for residential purpose.
5.3 Learned advocate for the defendant has also argued that plaintiff
has not entered witness box and it is only plaintiff who can come forward
with the case that the plaintiff requires suit premises for his bona fide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
requirement for his own occupation and therefore also trial Court and the
appellate Court have rightly decided the said suit and has rightly
dismissed the said suit and the said judgment and decree has been
confirmed by the appellate Court requires no interference.
5.4 With respect to contention that defendants have made permanent
alteration in the suit premises it has been argued that other than the
contention that the defendant has made gate in the wall, there is nothing
on record that defendant has made any permanent alteration in the
premises.
5.5 Learned advocate for the defendant has relied upon following
judgments:
(i) 1988 (0) AIJEL - SC - 23013, Ram Das vs. Ishwar Chander;
and
(ii) 1962 (0) AIJEL - SC 19595, Neta Ram vs. Jiwan Lal
5.6 It is also argued by learned advocate for the defendant that plaintiff
has miserably failed to prove the fact that there is any permanent
alteration in the suit premises and in view of the said fact, judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and appellate Court requires no
interference and therefore present Revision Application is required to be
rejected.
ANALYSIS :
6.1 Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, that has
also been confirmed by the first appellate Court, the first issue that has to
be considered is with respect to whether the plaintiff has proved that the
plaintiff required suit property for his own bona fide requirement. The
fact remains that plaintiff has sought for possession of the property on the
ground that plaintiff required suit property for occupation by himself and
members of his family for constructing residential house and, therefore,
the moot question involved in the present revision application is whether
claim of the landlord of his requirement of the suit property is bona fide ?
that is to say honest or not, will have to be taken into consideration. The
law in that matter is very clear and the same is not confined only to the
existence of the intention in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct the
building for residential purpose in the suit property but the said intention
has to be honest and has to be proved in the surrounding circumstances.
6.2 In the present case, looking at the surrounding circumstances, it has
come on record that the plaintiff required suit property for his own bona
fide requirement. The plaintiff himself have not entered the witness box
and proved the said requirement can be one factor that will also disentitle
plaintiff to seek eviction on the ground of his requirement of the suit
property for his reasonable and bona fide requirement, but apart from the
said factor in view of the fact that witness of the plaintiff, who claims to
be rent Collector and he having entered witness box, the fact that will
have to be considered is whether by way of his oral evidence and by way
of documentary evidence plaintiff is able to substantiate his case that the
plaintiff required suit property reasonably for his bona fide requirement
for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
premises are held.
6.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that residential property in which the
plaintiff resides is consisting of one room only and that one room is not
sufficient to accommodate his three sons. The fact that will have to be
considered is that there is nothing on record to prove that the house in
which plaintiff resides is consisting of only room. The plaintiff could
have proved the said fact by cogent evidence including appointment of
Court Commissioner to prove the said fact but the said fact has not come
on record to prove that the plaintiff has only one room in the residential
property whether the plaintiff is residing.
6.4 The other factor which also will have to be considered is that suit
property is open plot and the plaintiff intends to build residential house
but at the same time residential house, in which the plaintiff already
resides, which is situated at Mil-para, Rajkot, the plaintiff can build upper
store floor if he honestly required property for his three sons. There is
nothing on record to prove that the plaintiff had tried to take permission
from competent authority to make construction in the said residential
street No.7 at Rajkot in which plaintiff resides and that the said
permission was rejected. This goes to really prove that plaintiff is not
bona fidely or honestly requiring suit plot. Moreover, plaintiff is also in
possession of two front shops and open piece of land just behind two
shops of the suit premises, the area of his possession is roughly around
400 sq ft and if the plaintiff wanted to build residential premises for his
son then he could use the said premises and plaintiff has also not proved
by cogent evidence that the said property could also not be used to build
residential property for his son. In view of the said fact, it can be clearly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
ascertained that it is mere desire of the plaintiff to construct on the suit
property and that cannot be a ground for eviction of the tenant. From the
oral evidence and documentary evidence, it can be clearly established that
the plaintiff has already possessed other suitable and sufficient plot and
space to make construction for residential house and in that view of the
matter, trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff.
6.5 With respect to the permanent alteration that is stated to have been
made by the defendant, there is nothing on record to show that there is
permanent alteration which has been made by defendant in the suit
property. It cannot be said that the act of putting entrance gate in the rear
eastern wall materially alters rear eastern wall and making of entrance
cannot be considered as material alteration and the same cannot be a
cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit seeking eviction when the
plaintiff has not proved that the said entrance cannot be removed without
serious damage to the premises. The contention taken by learned
advocate for the defendant that as the plaintiff himself has not entered
witness box, the fact of plaintiff requiring suit premises for his own bona
fide requirement has not been proved by the plaintiff. The said contention
cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the witness of
the plaintiff has deposed as rent Collector and, therefore, his deposition
will have to be taken into consideration.
6.6 The judgment on which learned advocate for the plaintiff relies on
i.e. Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His Lr. Atul Kumar Aggarwal vs.
Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. Lrs. And others (supra) and Kanahaiya
Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan and others (supra) will not be applicable to the
facts of the present case as in the present case the plaintiff had other
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
suitable premises on which plaintiff could have made construction for his
residential premises. In the present case, the suit property is open plot and
plaintiff has sought for relief for eviction on the ground that plaintiff
requires suit property for his bona fide requirement as he wants to make
construction in suit premises and as there are other alternative premises in
which the plaintiff can make construction and there is nothing on record
coming forward that the plaintiff has made efforts in taking permission
from the concerned authority for making construction in the said premises
and has failed and, therefore, as there is nothing on record to prove the
said fact, the said judgments will not be applicable to the facts of the
present case.
6.7 Learned advocate for the defendants in case of Neta Ram vs. Jiwan
Lal (supra), more particularly para:8 which reads as under:
"8. Reading these provisions as a whole, it is obvious that if the
landlord's need be genuine and he satisfies the Controller, he can
obtain possession of the building or the land, as the case may be.
If, however, he does not re-erect the building and puts it to any
other use or lets it out to another tenant, the former tenant can
apply to be put back in possession. Clause (b) clearly shows both
affirmatively and negatively that the landlord must satisfy the
Controller about his claim, before he can obtain an order in his
favour. The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of
the claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the Controller must
be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord,
and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding
circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation,
the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after
construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough
that the landlord comes forward, and says that he entertains a
particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by
him. The clause speaks not of the bona fides of the landlord, but
says, on the other hand, that the claim of the landlord that he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be
bona fide, that is to say. honest in the circumstances. It is
impossible, therefore, to hold that the investigation by the
Controller should be confined only to the existance of an intention
to reconstruct, in the mind of the landlord. This intention must be
honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances. In our
opinion, the interpretation placed by the Punjab High Court (in
the decision of Gosain, J.) puts too narrow a construction, and
leaves very little for the Controller to decide. It is well-known that
Rent Restriction Acts were passed in view of the shortage of
houses and the High rents which were being demanded by
landlords. The very purpose of the Rent Restriction Acts would be
defeated, if the landlords were to come forward and to get tenants
turned out, on the bare plea that they want to reconstruct the
houses, without first establishing that the plea is bona fide with
regard to all the circumstances, viz., that the houses need
reconstruction or that they have the means to reconstruct them,
etc. The two Tribunals below had gone into the matter thoroughly,
and had agreed that the landlord had neither the means to
reconstruct the building nor had he made any attempt to face
cross-examination as a party. They were also of the opinion that
the building was in a good state and did not need to be pulled
down or reconstructed. With such clear findings, one would
expect that a revising Court, however vide its powers may be,
would, at least, go into the question over again, if it was going to
depart from this unanimous conclusion. It is hardly necessary to
go into the question of the extent of the powers of the High Court
under s. 15(5) of the Rent Restriction Act. They have been
adverted to in the ruling of this Court, above mentioned. They do
not, however, include the power to reverse concurrent findings,
without showing how those findings are erroneous. In the present
case, the learned Judge has given his conclusion without adverting
to single piece of evidence, from which his conclusion was drawn.
In these circumstances it cannot be said that he had examined the
propriety of the order sought to be revised, even under the
provisions of the law he was administering."
6.8 Learned advocate for the defendants in case of Ram Das vs. Ishwar
Chander (supra), more particularly para:6 which reads as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
"6. Upon a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that
both the contentions urged in support of the appeal are in-
substantial.
It is, no doubt, true that the question whether the requirement of
the landlords is bonafide or not is essentially one of fact,
notwithstanding the circumstance that a finding of fact is a
secondary and inferential fact drawn from other primary or
perceptive ones. All conclusions drawn from primary-facts are not
necessarily, questions of law. They can be, and quite often are,
pure questions of fact. The question as to bonafide requirement is
one such.
Statutes enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction on
the basis of contractual rights of the parties make the resumption
of possession by the land-lord subject to the satisfaction of certain
statutory conditions. One of them is the bonafide requirement of
the land-lord, variously described in the statutes as "bona-fide
requirement", "reasonable requirement", "bona-fide and
reasonable requirement" or, as in the case of the present statute,
merely referred to as "landlord requires for his own use". But the
essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the
landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith;
and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to
gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession however honest
it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and
that, that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the
objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court
considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In
doing so, that court must take all relevant circumstances into
consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant
is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down."
6.9 The above judgments will be applicable to the facts of the present
case in view of the fact that in the present case also the need of the
landlord is not genuine and honest and in view of the fact that plaintiff
has other alternative premises on which the plaintiff can make
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
construction and plaintiff having failed to make construction on the said
other alternative premises, the judgment of the trial Court as confirmed
by the appellate Court requires no interference.
7. Therefore, on the basis of overall analysis of the material on
record, on the basis of conclusion that has been referred to by both the
Courts 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 Courts 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, this Court is confined to find out
whether findings of fact recorded by the courts below are according to
law or not and it may not suffer from any abuse of law. The findings
recorded by the Courts below if perverse or have 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.
8. In the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can
not exercise its powers as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess
the evidence for coming to a different finding of facts. Revisional
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/1/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
jurisdiction is not and can not be equated with the powers of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
9. 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. 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.
10. 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 accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Connected Civil Applications would not allowed and they are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
