Gujarat High Court
Umeshbhai Rameshbhai Pandit vs Hemendra Mugatlal Parekh on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 569 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 569 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
UMESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANDIT
Versus
HEMENDRA MUGATLAL PAREKH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section
29 of the Bombay Rents Hotel, House Rates Control Act,1947
(for short "the Rent Act"), challenging the judgment and
decree, dated 11.01.2024, passed by 3 rd Additional District
Judge, Junagadh, in Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 2019,
whereby the judgement and decree passed by 3 rd Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of
2015, dated 14.01.2018, has been confirmed by the Appellate
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
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 Revision Application are
that the plaintiff being the owner of the suit property, filed the
Civil Suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground that the
suit property was given or rent to late Rameshbhai Pandit and
after his death, defendant no.1 and 2 were tenants of the suit
property.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the rent of the suit property is
Rs.18/- and that the original tenant of the suit property,
Rameshbhai Nagjibhai Pandit expired five years before the
filing of the suit and at the time when the suit was filed, late
Rameshbhai Pandit was residing alone in the suit property, and
since the death of Rameshbhai Pandit, for the last five years,
the suit property has not been used by the defendants and the
electricity meter has also been disconnected by the electricity
department, and therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on
the ground that defendants without any reasonable cause are
not using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let
for the last six months preceding the date of filing the suit and
therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit
premises under Section 13(1)(K) of the Rent Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
5. It was also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have
already alternative accommodation, and therefore the plaintiff
is entitled for possession of the suit property under Section
13(1) (L) of the Rent Act.
6. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit 14 as under:
"(1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Plaintiff is
entitled to file the present suit in the capacity of the
owner of the suit property?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants
have kept the suit house in a closed condition without
using it for residential purposes for the last 5 years after
the death of the Late Rameshbhai without any reasonable
cause?
(3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendants
have received an alternative residential house with
suitable amenities?
(4) Whether the Defendant proves that the suit is
barred by non-joinder of necessary parties?
(5) Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiff's
suit is liable to be dismissed due to insufficient Court
Fee?
(6) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get the arrears
of rent of Rs. 2160/- from 30/10/04 until the present date
from the Defendant, and also monthly damages of Rs.
2000/- until the possession is received after the tenancy is
terminated?
(7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get vacant
possession of the suit house?
(8) What order and decree?"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
7. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit 16 and the
witnesses of the plaintiff were examined vide Exhibits 52 and
65. The defendant examined himself vide Exhibit 71 and after
considering the oral evidence, documentary evidence and
giving findings on all issues, the Trial Court allowed the said
suit and directed the defendants to handover the peaceful and
vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree passed by the
Trial Court, the defendant no.2 filed Regular Civil Appeal
No.31 of 2019 and after appreciating the evidence, the First
Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed
judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit
No.60 of 2015, hence the present Civil Revision Application.
8. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that
the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff was
the exclusive owner of the suit property. The Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court have relied on the release deed
produced vide Exhibit 33 dated 07.06.1997 and it was the case
of the defendants that there are other owners of the property
and in view of the fact that all the owners have not been joined
in the said suit, the Trial Court could not have granted a decree
of eviction.
9. It has been argued that the Trial Court and the First Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
Court have not taken into consideration the fact that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property has not been
used by the defendants for the purpose for which it was let for
the last six months preceding the date of filing the suit.
10. Having heard learned advocate for the defendant and
having considered the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the fact
remains that the Trial Court has passed an order of eviction of
the tenant from the suit property on the following grounds:
(i) Non-user by defendants of the suit property for the purpose
for which it was let for the last six months, preceding the date
of filing the suit i.e. Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act and (ii)
defendants have alternative accommodation i.e. Section 13(1)
(L) of the Rent Act, in view the fact that the defendants have
after coming into operation of the Act has acquired suitable
residence.
11. If the entire evidence of the present proceeding is taken
into consideration, the fact remains that the electricity
consumption of the suit property for the relevant period, which
is produced vide Exhibits 52 and 53, shows minimum
consumption of electricity. The relevant period in the present
case will be six months from the date of filing the suit i.e. from
01.11.2014 to 01.05.2015, and if the documentary evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
produced vide Exhibits 52 and 53 are taken into consideration,
there is no electricity consumption, which has been observed
by the Trial Court. Moreover, if the oral evidence of the
defendant vide Exhibit-71 is taken into consideration, the
defendant has specifically admitted that he is residing at the
quarter allotted to him and that defendant no.1 is married and
is staying at Raiji Bagh area and in the oral evidence of
defendant no.2, it has come on record that defendant no.1 is
staying at Raiji Bagh at her own address and that defendant
no.2 is working as Public School Teacher and that in the year
2015, he was not residing at the suit premises and that in the
year 2010, he was working at J.P. Cement, Bhuj and thereafter
he was residing at Valsad with his family and occasionally
comes to the suit property during summer and Diwali holidays.
The defendant no.2 has also admitted in his cross-examination
that he is doing service at Sutrapda and at present also he is
residing at Sutrapada.
12. Taking into consideration the said fact that defendant
no.1 has already married and is residing at her own residence,
which has come on record. Moreover, defendant no.1 has
neither entered the witness box, nor has defendant no.1
challenged the order passed by the Trial Court, the findings
recorded against defendant no.1 has become final. With
respect to the fact that defendant no.2 has an alternative
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
accommodation, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion, in
view of the oral evidence of the said witness, wherein he has
stated that he already has a quarter allotted to him at
Sutrapada. Therefore, it can be clearly established that the
plaintiff has proved that the defendants have alternative
accommodation.
13. With respect to the contention of non-user, the plaintiff
has proved that the suit property is not being used and has
remained closed since last six months, preceding the date of
filing the suit, the defendant has relied on the documents
produced vide Exhibits 52 and 53 which are electricity
consumption bills and also the oral evidence of the defendants,
wherein he has admitted that he is not residing at the suit
premises and he is visiting their suit premises only during
summer holidays and diwali holidays.
14. The fact remains that initial burden of proving the fact of
non-user is on the landlord and once the plaintiff proves the
said fact, the burden shifts on the defendant and in the present
case, the initial burden that the defendants have ceased to
occupy the premises continuously for a period of six months
was on the landlord and he had to adduce evidence to prove
the fact that the tenant has seized to occupy the suit premises
continuously for period of 6 months and he has to adduce
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
tangible evidence to prove the fact that as on the date of filling
the petition, the tenant was not occupying the suit premises
continuously for the period of 6 months.
15. Once such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the
tenant to prove that there was reasonable cause for him having
ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for continuous period
of 6 months and once the premises have been shown by
evidence to be not in occupation of the tenant, the pleading of
the landlord that such non-user is without reasonable cause has
the effect of putting the tenant on notice to plead and prove the
availability of reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the
tenancy premises.
16. In the present case, the plaintiff had only to satisfy the
court that he has pleaded and proved the non-user of the suit
premises for a continuous period of 6 months immediately
preceding the date of filing of the suit and as the plaintiff has
established his claim, the onus shifts to the tenant to establish
that his default which rendered him liable to eviction was
condonable by the Court because of reasonable cause.
17. In the present case, the defendant did not take defense in
the pleading that the suit premises remained unused because of
the reasonable cause, but his case is that the premises never
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
remained closed, nor there was any non-use till the date of
institution of the suit. The tenant tried to lead evidence to
prove that the suit property was continuously in use.
18. 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 are according to law and does not suffer from any abuse
of law. The findings recorded by the Court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or
proper.
19. The High Court can not interfere with the finding of
facts recorded by the first Appellate Court. 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 reconsideration
of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.
20. 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 has not used the suit premises for
the purpose for which it was let without reasonable cause for a
period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit
and that the defendants have alternative accommodation, 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.
21. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/569/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
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. In view of the
disposal of the main matter, the civil application does not
survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
