Gujarat High Court
Kalpana Wd/O Uddhav Limbje Jadav vs Rajniben Narayanbhai Patil on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 558 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
KALPANA WD/O UDDHAV LIMBJE JADAV
Versus
RAJNIBEN NARAYANBHAI PATIL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application is filed challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge,
Surat, in Regular Civil Appeal no.114 of 2021, whereby the
judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Surat
in Small Civil Suit no.124 of 2013, dated 20.07.2021, has been
confirmed.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision
Application are that the plaintiff claiming to be the owner of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
the property filed a suit, against the defendant on the ground
that the defendant is a tenant in arrears and has not paid the
rent as per the order of the Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is
entitled for the possession of the suit property in terms of
Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the "Rent
Act") and that the defendant has sublet the suit property and
therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the suit
property under the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent
Act. Moreover, the plaintiff has also claimed eviction on the
ground that the defendant was creating nuisances and
annoyance and the Trial Court had framed issues vide Exhibit
15, as under:
"1 Whether plaintiff proves that he has hired
the suit property for commercial purpose
and monthly rent was Rs.2000-00 and it is
standard rent ?
2 Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is
arrears in rent and not paid rent as per
order of the court?
3 Whether plaintiff prove that defendant has
committed breach of condition and sublet it?
4 Whether plaintiff prove that defendant was
create a nuisance and annoyance?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
5 Whether plaintiff prove that he want suit
premises for bonafide requirement ?
6 Whether plaintiff prove that defendant has
to pay local tax and take illegally license ?
7 Whether plaintiff prove that notice is not
necessary as per condition?
8 Whether defendant prove that no any rent
was due?
9 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief
as prayed for?
10 What order and decree?"
4. The plaintiff had examined himself vide Exhibit 36 and a
witness of the plaintiff was examined vide Exhibit 54. The
defendant examined herself vide Exhibit 55, and defendant
no.2 did not enter the witness box. After taking into
consideration the oral evidence, documentary evidence, and
giving a finding on all the issues, the Trial Court passed a
judgment and decree granting eviction of the defendants of the
suit property on the ground that the plaintiff has proved that
the defendant is a tenant in arrears, and that the defendant has
sublet the suit property and that the defendant is committing
nuisances and annoyance.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.114 of 2021, and
after re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court
dismissed the said appeal, hence, the present Civil Revision
Application.
6. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that
the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff has proved that the suit property has been sublet to
defendant no.2, the fact remains that defendant no.2 is the
nephew of defendant no.1, and therefore, it cannot be said that
the suit property has been sublet to defendant no.2. Moreover,
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have wrongly come to
the conclusion that the defendant is tenant in arrears in view of
the fact that the defendant has already deposited the rent and
therefore, the defendant cannot be considered as tenant in
arrears. With respect to the fact that the defendant is causing
nuisance and annoyance, there is nothing on record to prove
the said fact, and the fact that the defendant has forged the
signature of the plaintiff has also not been proved, and though
an application is filed before the concerned Police Station, but
no complaint has been registered against the defendant for the
alleged forgery. Therefore, the Trial Court could not have
passed a judgment and decree of eviction, and therefore, the
present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed,
and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
confirmed by the First Appellate Court is required to be
quashed and set aside.
7. Having heard learned advocate for the defendant, the fact
remains that before filing a suit for eviction, a rent application
no.12 of 2009 was filed, wherein the Court had held that the
defendant is liable for payment of rent of Rs.98,000/- for a
period from 09.04.2009 to 08.05.2013, and the defendant paid
an amount of Rs.34,000/-, and therefore, a notice was issued to
the defendant on 27.05.2013, which is produced vide Exhibit
41, in view of the fact that an amount of Rs.64,000/- was due.
Pursuant to the said notice, the defendant did not pay the entire
amount of rent, and therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff
on the ground that defendant no.1 is a tenant in arrears.
8. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was
originally given on rent to one Uddhav Limbji Jadhav, and
defendant no.1, being his wife, had become a tenant of the suit
property under the provisions of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent
Act.
9. With respect to the fact that the defendant has sublet the suit
property to defendant no.2, it was the case of the plaintiff that
the possession of the property is with defendant no.2. Though
defendant no.2 is a nephew of defendant no.1, the fact is that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
the original tenant of the suit property was Uddhav Limbji
Jadhav, and after his death, his wife, i.e., defendant no.1, had
become the tenant of the suit property.
10. With respect to the contention of the defendant being
tenant in arrears, the fact remains that the rent that was fixed in
Rent Application No.12 of 2009 was Rs.2,000/- per month and
the defendant was liable to pay the rent from the 09.04.2009
and as the entire amount as per the order was not paid by the
defendant, a statutory notice was issued to the defendant no.1
vide Exhibit 41 on 27.05.2013 for demanding a rent of
Rs.64,000/- and neither any reply was given by the defendant,
nor did the defendant comply with the said amount.
11. The defendant has taken a plea that the defendant has
deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/-, but the defendant did not
produce any documentary evidence to justify the said amount.
Moreover, the defendant has also taken a defense that the
defendant has made payment of municipal taxes, but in the
cross-examination of the defendant, the defendant has
categorically stated that since the shop was rented, the taxes of
the Surat Municipal Corporation were paid by her husband, i.e.
the original tenant and even after his death, the said taxes and
light bills were paid by him. Therefore, there was no dispute
with respect to the fact that the standard rent of the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
property was Rs.2,000/-, and that the liability of paying the
municipal tax was on defendant no.1. In the present case, the
issues were framed vide Exhibit-15 on 30.09.2016, and though
the amount claimed in the notice was Rs.64,000/- rent due, the
fact remains that the the defendant no.1, has deposited an
amount of Rs.55,000/- till the date of framing of issues, i.e. till
30.09.2016, and therefore an amount of Rs.9,000/- was still
outstanding. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the
defendant no.1 is a tenant in arrears.
12. With respect to the fact that defendant no.1 has sublet
the suit property to defendant no.2, the only defense that
defendant no.1 has taken is that defendant no.2, is the nephew
of the original tenant and is assisting the defendant no.1, in her
business of hair cutting-saloon. With respect to the fact that
the defendant no.2 is exclusively occupying the suit premises,
the plaintiff has examined a witness vide Exhibit 54, who has
stated that he is a regular customer of defendant no.2's hair
cutting saloon. Therefore, the initial burden was on the
plaintiff to prove that the defendant no.1, has sublet the suit
property to defendant no.2 and the plaintiff has proved the said
fact in view of the fact that the defendant no.2 was in
possession of the property. The defendant no.1 has not
produced any documentary evidence, to prove that defendant
no.1 is doing business in the suit property, though the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
defendant no.1, has taken a contention that the defendant no.1
is taking help of other workers who are in the business of hair
cutting. But the fact is that defendant no.2, has neither entered
the witness box, and if the, cross-examination of the defendant
no.1 is taken into consideration, she herself has stated, that she
does not know, as to on which date and which month, the
defendant no.2 comes in the suit premises.
13. Therefore, the fact remains that, if defendant no.1 is
administrating the shop, she would definitely know as to when
defendant no.2 is coming to the premises. Moreover, there is
nothing on record to show and suggest that defendant no.1, is
doing business in the suit premises, and therefore, the Trial
Court has rightly held that defendant no.1 has sublet the suit
premises to defendant no.2.
14. With respect to the fact that the defendant is causing
nuisance and annoyance in the suit premises, the fact that the
plaintiff is relying on a document produced vide Exhibit 48,
which states that the plaintiff has given Sammatti Patrak, when
defendant no.1 applied for a license in the Gumastha
Certificate before the Surat Municipal Corporation for the
shop, and in the said application, tendered the consent which
alleged to have been signed by the plaintiff and in the cross-
examination, the defendant no.1 has specifically stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
there was no occasion of obtaining the plaintiff's signature.
Therefore, the fact remains that the said signature has not been
signed by the plaintiff and the signature has been used by
defendant no.1, stating to be the consent given by the plaintiff,
and therefore, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has
caused nuisance and annoyance.
15. Therefore, on the basis of overall analysis of the material
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
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.
16. The High Court can not interfere with the finding of
facts recorded by the First Appellate Court. The consideration
or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional
jurisdiction under this Act is confined to find out that finding
recorded by the courts below is according to Law and does not
suffer from any error of Law and only if the finding of facts
recorded by the courts below, is perverse or has been arrived at
without consideration of the material evidence or that such
finding is based on no evidence, or misreading of the evidence,
or is grossly erroneous that, if allow to stand, it would result in
gross miscarriage of justice and the same is open to correction
as the same is not treated as findings according to Law and in
the present case, the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court
and the appellate Court is neither perverse nor arrived at
without consideration of the material evidence. In the present
case, in revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can not exercise
its powers as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the
evidence for coming to a different finding of facts. Revisional
jurisdiction is not and can not be equated with the powers of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/558/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal.
17. 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. The Court below has rightly come to the
conclusion that the tenant is in arrears of rent and has sublet
the suit property and has committed nuisance and annoyance
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.
18. 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 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.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
