Gujarat High Court
Shree Banas Education Trust (Through ... vs Khetivadi Utpann Bazar Samiti on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 463 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 463 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SHREE BANAS EDUCATION TRUST (THROUGH HARISHI BHIKAJI
VEJIYA)
Versus
KHETIVADI UTPANN BAZAR SAMITI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS RUMI M GANDHI(3472) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the judgement and
decree, dated 08.08.2025, passed by 6th Additional District
Judge, Deesa at Banaskantha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of
2023, whereby, the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the judgement and decree dated 02.05.2023,
passed by 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Deesa in Regular Civil
Suit No.83 of 2023.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as per
their original status as that in the suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are
that the plaintiff had filed the suit on the ground that by
Resolution No.25, the defendants have agreed to give on rent the
suit premises for 10 years and thereby a rent agreement was
made on 04.11.2011, and the building was allocated for rent to
start the school. Thereafter, subsequent agreement was entered
into between the plaintiff and defendant on 14.07.2011, for
giving the playground area for students and the said agreement
was for a period of five years. It is the case of the plaintiff that
thereafter various notices have been given by the defendant,
which were replied by the plaintiff, and thereafter, on
01.06.2018, a final notice was sent by giving 24 hours to the
plaintiff to vacate the suit premises and after several discussion,
the plaintiff agreed to pay 15% hike in the rent from 01.06.2016.
The plaintiff was asked by the employees of Rabari Gopalbhai
to handover possession to them and as the plaintiff apprehended
that the defendant will evict the plaintiff without due process of
law, the plaintiff filed suit to claim relief for permanent
injunction. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed
written statement, vide Exhibit-9. The trial Court framed issues,
vide Exhibit-17, which reads as under:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is trying to
dispossess him from the property without due process of law?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
(ii) Whether the plaintiff prove that the rent agreement from
4.11.2011 to 31.03.2021 was terminated?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the rental agreement expired
on 30.04.2017 and thus become "Statutory Tenant" from the
date according to the Rent Act?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant failed to issue
notice as per rent control Act?
(v) Whether the defendant proves that the rent agreement was in
existence and expired on 31.03.2021?
(vi) Whether the defendant prove that in the present suit the
Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 would be applicable
as per the exemption and not the Rent Control Act?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff proves is entitled to relief as prayed for?
(viii) What order and decree?
4. The plaintiff examined himself, vide Exhibit-52 and the
witnesses of the plaintiff were examined vide Exhibit-61 and
after taking into consideration the oral evidence and
documentary evidence and giving finding on all issues, the trial
court dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by the said judgement
and decree passed by the Trial court, the plaintiff filed Regular
Civil Appeal No.15 of 2023, and after appreciating the evidence,
the first appellate court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed
the judgement and decree dated 02.05.2023 passed by 3rd
Additional Civil Judge, Deesa in Regular Civil Suit No.83 of
2020. Hence the present Second Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that
the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the
fact that the plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-
yearly rent of the disputed property and the plaintiff was
permitted to utilise the open land adjacent for the playground of
the school run by the plaintiff at the yearly rent of Rs.1,00,000/-.
6. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff
that the trial and the first appellate court have grossly erred in
not appreciating the fact that the plaintiff had agreed to pay an
increase in rent at the rate of 15% with effect from 01.06.2016,
after completion of five years and had actually paid such
increment in full.
7. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that as
per the provisions of tenancy law, the plaintiffs were required to
be protected, therefore, it has been argued that the plaintiff being
in possession of the suit property, the defendant cannot
dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. Moreover, it
has also been argued by learned advocate for the plaintiff that
the only cause available for the defendant to vacate the plainitiff
from the suit property under the provisions of Bombay Rent
Act, and therefore, also the trial court and first appellate Court
could not have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
therefore, there are substantial questions of law involved in the
present Second Appeal, therefore, the present Second Appeal is
required to be admitted on the following substantial question of
law:-
(i) Whether or not the demand in increase in rent @ 100% after
completion of five years is contrary to the guidelines issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Mohammad Ahmad vs. Atma Ram Chauhan, AIR 2011
SUPREME COURT 1940?
(ii) Whether or not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
act of the respondent - APMC renting 7 rooms and the
open ground to a third party, when te appellant is already in
occupation of the said property as a tenant, is an abuse of the
process of law?
(iii) Whether or not the impugned judgment and decree of both the
learned courts below in ignoring the guidelines framed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is arbitrary and illegal?
6. Having heard learned advocate for the plaintiff and having
considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
and confirmed by the first appellate Court, the fact remains that
the plaintiff himself has filed a Civil Suit and has not sought any
protection under the Rent Act.
7. Moreover, the admitted position is that the said transaction
is of the year 2011, and therefore, the consideration of the
Bombay Rent Act will not be applicable to the facts of the
present case. Moreover, if the entire facts as stated in the plaint
and the documents are taken into consideratin, as on date, there
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
is no subsisting agreement between the plaintiff and defendant
and plaintiff has tried to canvass his argument by relying on
Exhibit-63 & 73, but if the said fact is also taken into
consideration, the said period has also expired, and as on date,
there is no subsisting agreement between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
8. The fact remains that the plaintiff had demanded
possession of the suit property, vide Exhibit-22 on 17.05.2018
and vide Exhibit-23 on 25.05.2018 and had instructed the
plaintiff to vacate the premises on 31.5.2018, thereafter,
subsequent notices were also served, vide Exhibit-24 & 25,
wherein, the time limit was extended for educational year
through letter, vide Exhibit-27 and after the defendant was
informed to vacate the possession, vide Exhibit-28, on
10.11.2020 after the educational year 2019-2020 and vide
Exhibit-29, the plainitiff demanded the extention of rent
accommodation after educational year 2019-2020 which was
accepted by the defendant, vide Resolution dated 13.10.2018,
and therefore, the said evidence clearly states that the
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was only till
educational year 2019-2020 and the defendant had to vacate the
suit premises. The said agreement on which the plaintiff relies to
be in process also specifically states that the defendant can
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
terminate the said agreement at any point of time. It is also
relevant to be taken into consideration that the agreement on
which the plaintiff relies is not a registered document and as per
Registration Act, section-17 of the said Act states that document
on which the plaintiff relies on is for more than one year, and
therefore, it was compulsory required to be registered under the
Registration Act and in view of the said fact the said document
cannot be considered and in view of fact that the period stated in
the agreement has also expired and there is no subsisting
agreement, the plaintiff cannot be protected, and therefore, the
trial court and first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit
filed by the plaintiff.
9. Considering the submissions made and after examining the
findings of both the Courts below on the issue raised in the suit
and upon examining the judgment and orders of both the Courts
below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
advocate for the plaintiff is unable to point out any infirmity,
perversity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the fact
recorded by both the Courts below, not only that, the learned
advocate for the plaintiff is unable to show that the findings
recorded by the learned Courts are without any evidence or there
is any illegality in the findings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
10. In the case of Jaichand (Dead) through Lrs and Other
v. Sahnulal and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3864, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"28. It is thus clear that under Section 100 CPC, the High
Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the
first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in
such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary
to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the
basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence."
11. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of
any substantial question of law. Both the learned Trial Court and
first appellate Court have rightly decided the issue between the
parties in the right perspective and as stated above no substantial
question of law arises in the present appeal. The plaintiff has
failed to prove his case before the learned trial Court as well as
before the first appellate Court. This Court does not find any
substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of
any merit both on facts and law and the same is dismissed at
admission stage.
12. In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil
Application does not survive and stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/463/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
After pronouncement of the order, the learned advocate for
the appellant has sought stay the operation of the order, in view
of the fact that the appellant intents to challenge the said order.
In view of the said fact, the operation and execution of the order
is stayed for a period of four weeks.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
