Yasinbhai Gulamrasul Savabara vs Mohammedbhai Nabibax Rinchhdiwala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6354 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Yasinbhai Gulamrasul Savabara vs Mohammedbhai Nabibax Rinchhdiwala on 8 September, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CRA/519/2025                                ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                       R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 519 of 2025
                       ================================================================
                                               YASINBHAI GULAMRASUL SAVABARA & ORS.
                                                                   Versus
                                            MOHAMMEDBHAI NABIBAX RINCHHDIWALA & ORS.
                       ==============================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR IRSHADAHMAD B MEV(2551) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                       MR SHARIF H SHAIKH(6826) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
                       MR JF MEHTA(461) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
                       ================================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                                           Date : 08/09/2025
                                            ORAL ORDER

1. The present Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 26.06.2025, passed by Small Cause Appellate Bench No.1 of Ahmedabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021, whereby, the said Regular Civil Appeal has been dismissed and the appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2018, passed by Small Cause Court No.10 of Ahmedabad, in HRP Suit No.151 of 2015.

2. For the sake of brevity, 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 suit property was originally an open land, and thereafter, superstructure was made by the tenant i.e. the predecessor of defendant Nos.1 to 5. The suit property was given on rent to one Lakhabhai Masabhai, i.e. the predecessor of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

defendant Nos.1 to 5, for monthly rent of Rs.2/- for a period of 50 years and it is the case of the plaintiff that as the lease period is over, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have become statutory tenant and that the defendant No.1 to 5 are irregular in making payment of rent and that the rent was due from 01.04.1985, and therefore, it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants committed breach of terms and conditions of the lease agreement, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession.

4. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of possession on the ground that the defendant has committed breach of terms of tenancy and that the defendants were tenant in arrears and that a valid notice is issued under the provision of section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The said suit was also filed on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit property for his own bonafide requirement. Issues were framed vide Exhibit-24 as under:-

1. Whether the plaintitff proves that the defendant has committed breach of terms of tenancy?

1-A. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are tenant in arrears and therefore plaintiff is entitled for the evicttion decree?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that there exists a relation of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

landlord and tenant between him and the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff reasonable and bona fide requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as alleged?

4. Is the suit notice legal and valid?

5. Whether the defendant would be put to greater hardship by passing the decree than by refusing to pass in favour of the plaintiff?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the releif as prayed for?

7. What order and decree?

5. The plaintiff examined himself vide Exhibit-27, the defendant did not lead any oral evidence, neither produced any documentary evidence and after considering oral evidence and documentary evidence and giving findings on all the issues, the trial Court allowed the said suit of eviction only on the ground of the plaintiff proved that statutory notice under section 12(2) has been issued by the plaintiff to the defendants and that the plaintiff has proved that defendants are tenant in arrears. The said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged by the original defendant Nos.6 to 8 and the origianl tenants have not challenged the said order passed by the trial Court and after reappreciating the evidence, the first appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

6. Learned advocate for the defendant Nos.6 to 8 has mainly argued that no statutory notice under section 12(2) was served on the defendants and the notice produced vide Exhibit-28 does not satisfy the requirement of demand of rent and giving an opportunity to the defendant, to pay the arrears of rent. Moreover, it has also been argued by learned advocate for the defendant Nos.6 to 8 that, the said notice produced vide Exhibit- 28, also does not determine the tenancy and that no suit for evicion is maintainable without determination of tenancy, and therefore, the suit for eviction could not be filed in view of the fact that, statutory notice under Section 12(2) was not complied by the plaintiff before filing the suit on the ground of seeking eviction on the basis of defendant being tenant in arrears of rent.

7. Learned advocate for the defendant Nos.6 to 8 has relied upon the judgment reported in [(1982) 2 GLR 114] in the case of Khimji Bhimji Majithia v. Taraben Lalji Soni and [(2001) 2 GLR 1615] in the case of Shantaben Harilal Brahmbhatt v. Hasmukhlal Maneklal Chokshi, and therefore, it has been argued that the present Revision Application is required to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff has mainly argued that if the notice produced vide Exhibit-28 is taken into consideration, the same is as per the provisions of secion 12(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The fact remains that in the said notice, the plaintiff has stated that the rent of the suit property is Rs.2/- per month and that the rent is due from 01.04.1985, is specifically stated and in the said notice the plaintiff has also stated at paragraph No.3 that the said notice is issued for recovery of the said due amount of rent and has also stated that on expiry of 30 days, the plaintiff shall initiate proceedings for recovery of possession of the property, therefore, the said notice is under the provision of Section 12(2) of the Rent Act and has been served to the tenant in the manner provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the said notice cannot be said to be against the provisions of section 12(2) of the Rent Act, and therefore, the present Revision Application is required to be dismissed.

9. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

considered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court, the issue involved in the present Revision Application is with respect to the fact that the notice produced vide Exhibit-28, was as per the provisions of section 12(2) of the Rent Act, though wordings of the said notice are not well worded, but the fact remains that while issuing the said notice the plaintiff has stated that the rent of the suit property is Rs.2/- per month and also stated that the said rent is due from 01.04.1985, therefore, the plaintiff had clearly stated that the rent of Rs.2/- is due and payable by the defendant from 01.04.1985. Moreover, if paragraph No.3 of the said notice, produced vide Exhibit-28 is taken into consideration, it clearly states that the said notice is issued for recovery of the said rent and the fact that the said rent is not paid by the defendant from 01.04.1985 is clearly stated in the said notice. Moreover, while issuing the said notice, the period of one month has been given to the defendant to comply with the said notice failing which suit for possession would be filed by the plaintiff has clearly been stated at paragraph No.4 of the said notice. If the reply to the said notice is taken into consideration which is produced vide Exhibit-29, the defendant has not taken any grievance with respect to the fact that the said notice is not as per the provision of section 12(2) of the Rent Act. Moreover, even during the proceedings till the time the issues were framed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/519/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025

undefined

vide Exhibit-24, the defendants have not paid the rent amount which were stated to be due in the notice produced vide Exhibit-