Heirs Of Late Vijay Vasantrao Mane ... vs Trustee Of Shree Ramji Hanumanji Trust ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6347 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Heirs Of Late Vijay Vasantrao Mane ... vs Trustee Of Shree Ramji Hanumanji Trust ... on 8 September, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/475/2025                                ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                       R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 of 2025
                       ================================================================
                          HEIRS OF LATE VIJAY VASANTRAO MANE VINAYAK VIJAY MANE
                                                   Versus
                        TRUSTEE OF SHREE RAMJI HANUMANJI TRUST HASMUKH RAMANLAL
                                                VERMA & ANR.
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       S D MANSURI(7509) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       ================================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                        Date : 08/09/2025
                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ), challenging the judgement and decree, dated 02.07.2025, passed by Principal District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2019, confirming the order dated 13.03.2019, passed by the Small Cause Court, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.2514 of 2013.

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 filed suit for eviction, against the defendant on the ground that the suit property was given to the defendant on rent and that the defendant, without reasonable cause is not using the suit property for more than 6 months, preceding to the institution of the suit, therefore, the suit that

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

was filed was under section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

4. The Trial Court framed issues vide Exhibit - 30 which are following:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which the premiseslet for a continuous period of six months immediately preceeding the date of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

3) What order and decree?

5. The defendant filed his written statement, vide Exhibit- 13, the trustee of the plaintiff trust examined himself vide Exhibit-

34, the defendant did not lead any oral or documentary evidence and after considering the oral evidence, documentary evidence and giving finding on all the issues, the Trial Court decreed the said suit, aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendant-tenant filed Civil Appeal and after re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the said First Appeal and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/475/2025                           ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                       undefined

6. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not appreciated the fact that the original tenant of the suit property was Vasantrao Govindrao Mane and after his death, the tenant of the property under the provision of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act, the other legal heirs of deceased Vasantrao Mane become tenants of the suit property and the said fact was taken as a defence in the written statement filed, vide Exhibit-13 and the trial Court has not taken the same into consideration and therefore also, the judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court are required to be quashed and set aside.

7. Moreover, it has also been argued that the Trial Court could not have granted a decree of eviction relying on the Electricity Bills produced vide Exhibit-36 & 38, hence, it has been argued that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have erred in granting decree of eviction and in view of the said fact, the present Civil Revision Application is required to be allowed.

8. Having heard learned advocate for the defendants, the fact remains that the defendants have neither cross-examined the plaintiff's witness nor the defendants have entered the witness box to give deposition and the trial Court vide Exhibit-41 has closed the stage of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. By an order dated 14.08.2017 the trial Court had cross-

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/475/2025                               ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                           undefined

examined the witness of the plaintiff on 14.08.2017. The plaintiff has proved the fact that the suit property is not used by the defendants for continuous period of six months, immediately preceding the date of filing the suit. The suit property is used as shop and there is nothing on record to prove that the defendants have been using the said premises for the said business. Moreover, defendants have not produced any bills or vouchers showing that they were in continuous use of the rented premises. Moreover, from the electricity bills produced vide Exhibits-36 & 38, the consumption is showing nil, which clearly states that the rented premises remained in close condition.

9. The following are admitted position:

(i) The plaintiff has given the suit property to the defendants on rent for doing business.

(ii) The defendants were doing business in the suit shop.

(iii) The suit that has been filed is for eviction under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act.

(iv) The electricity bills for year 2010 to 2012 show that there is no consumption of electricity.

10. In the present case, the trust claiming to be the owner of the suit shop bearing Municipal Census No.05/12/188/000000/020, has fild suit for eviction on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

ground that the suit shop was rented to Vasantrao Govindrao Mane for monthly rent of Rs.52/- per month for one shop and Rs.98/- per month for another shop and after his demise, his son Vijay Vasantrao Mane had inherited tenancy rights and after his death, his two sons, namely Vinayak Vijay Mane and Prashant Vijay Mane have inherited tenancy rights qua the suit shop. Earlier, the said rent suit was numbered as 47 of 2013 which was later on re-registered as SMCST No.2514 of 2013 pending the suit Vijay Vsantrao Mane passed away on 19.02.2014, and thereafter, the present tenants i.e. legal heirs under Section 5(11)

(c) of the Bombay Rent Act were brought on record vide order dated 11.02.2015 passed below Exhibit-12 and they did not appear before the trial Court, though duly served with the public notice in the daily newspaper Divyabhaskar, dated 13.12.2024. In the present case, though contention has been raised that the other legal heirs of Vasantrao Mane i.e. Virendra and Vandana were not joined as tenant but the fact remains that neither they have claimed any right in the premises in the suit under the provisions of section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, and therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court have rightly allowed the said suit and granted decree of eviction on the ground of non user under the provision of section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/475/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                               undefined

11. On the above referred background, the fact remains that if the defendant is using the suit premises there has to be some document to show that there are transactions of purchase of items for the shop for the business. The defendant has neither produced any vouchers of purchase or sale. Moreover, the electricity consumption which is produced vide Exhibit-36 & 38, clearly states as follows:

Month Consumption

12. The period that will have to be calculated will be from September-2012 to May-2013 i.e. 01.04.2013 is the date when the suit for eviction is filed and March-2013 will be 6 months preceding the date of filing the suit and if the same is perused it can be clearly established that there is minimum consumption of electricity with respect to the suit property, which is used as

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

business. Therefore, looking to the entire facts, it can be established that the defendant-tenant is not using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let for last 6 months without reasonable cause for purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of 6 month preceding from the date of the suit.

13. In the present case, there is nothing on record to prove that there was reasonable cause that the property has not been used by the defendant. The fact remains that the defendant has stated that he is using the premises, but there is no evidence coming forward from the defendant with respect to the said fact. The evidence on the issues of non user of the suit premises is in the form of electricity consumption bills produced vide Exhibits-36 & 38. The said electricity bill shows that in the suit premises there is minimum consumption of electricity.

14. The fact remains that initial burden to show that the tenant has seized to occupy the suit premises continuously for period of 6 months is always on the landlord and he has to adduce 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. Once such evidence is adduced, the burden shifts on the tenant to prove that there was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

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.

15. 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.

16. 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 business never remained closed, nor was there 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.

17. To prove the said fact, the defendant did not produce any purchase vouchers, sales vouchers, accounts books, sales tax

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

returns, renewed license under the Shop And Establishment Act or other convincing evidence that the plaintiff was in continuous use of the suit premises, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the two Courts have rightly recorded the finding that the suit property was lying unused for the period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of institution of the suit.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/475/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

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.

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 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.

                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/475/2025                            ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                        undefined

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 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.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)

Manoj Kumar Rai