Gujarat High Court
Kanubhai Punjiram Patel.Decd. ... vs Heirs Of Balram Rajanbhai Piralal on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 218 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KANUBHAI PUNJIRAM PATEL.DECD. THR.HEIRS(CA 8563/O8 -5.8.08) &
ORS.
Versus
HEIRS OF BALRAM RAJANBHAI PIRALAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR DEVDIP BRAHMBHATT(3490) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pranjal M. Buch for learned
advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner and learned
advocate Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt for the respondents.
2. The present Revision Application is filed under Section
29(2) of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging-House Rates
Control Act, 1947 against the judgment and decree passed
by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
dated 08.05.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2002, having so
filed, against current findings so recorded by the trial Court
as well as appellate Court against the petitioners -
revisionists.
3. As far as possible, the parties will be referred as per
their original status in the suit.
Facts of the case
4. The petitioner herein is original landlord/ plaintiff who
instituted H.R.P.C.S. No. 1085 of 1994 against the
respondent- original defendant/ tenant. The suit premises is
rented premises consist of 10x10 ft. room situated at ground
floor, B/11 Ramkrishna Society, Near Shah-e-Alam, Tolnaka,
Gitamandir road, Ahmedabad. Whereas, landlord residing in
a house situated at same address, as above. The rented
premises was given on monthly rent of Rs. 100/ to tenant on
13.10.1966. At that time, landlord also taken deposit of Rs.
6,000/- from the tenant.
4.1 As per the case of the landlord, suit premises was given
on rent for laundry business to the tenant. It is specific case
of the landlord that there was a breach of terms of tenancy
vis-a-vis change nature of business of rented premises by the
tenant from laundry business to travel agency and cable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
business and so also using it as a his residence. Further, it is
alleged that the landlord requires rented premises for his
reasonable and bona-fide requirement as he is not having
any son and as such in his advance age, he & his wife want to
live with her married daughter. It is further pleaded by the
landlord that the tenant erected a permanent structure,
which could not have been done without the prior sanction
of the landlord. On such aforesaid grounds, suit for eviction
came to be filed by landlord.
4.2 The tenant having entered his appearance in the suit,
contested on all grounds. He filed his written statement at
Exh. 18. It is the case of the tenant that suit premises though
allotted for business purpose i.e. laundry business, he still
doing the same work having not changed the nature of his
business as alleged. It is also denied that he is residing along
with his family in the rented premises. So also, the tenant has
denied that there is any permanent structure put up by them
without prior sanction of the landlord, inasmuch as such
structure was in existence prior to tenancy. After the
pleadings got over, the issues were framed below Exh.19 by
the trial Court. Thereafter, parties led their oral evidence
before the trial Court.
4.3 After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the
conclusion that the issues so framed/ germane in the suit,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
not proved by the plaintiffs, thereby, not entitled for decree
of eviction as prayed for.
4.4 The landlord having aggrieved by dismissal of his suit,
preferred Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2002 before the bench of
Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. Where also, after hearing
the parties at length and examining the issues thread-bare,
the appellate Court also comes to the similar conclusion as
drawn by the trial Court. Thus, the appeal filed by the
landlord also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present
Revision Application, filed at the instance of dissatisfied
landlord.
4.5 It is required to be observed that during the pendency
of the Revision application, the landlord died, initially
survived by his legal heirs, who are joined in this revision
application i.e. his wife, married daughter and his grand-son.
Now, it is reported to this Court as on date, only surviving
legal heirs of original landlord is grand-son i.e. petitioner No.
1.3.
4.6 Likewise, respondent- original tenant also died during
the pendency of the revision application, having survived by
his sons and wife, who are on record.
Submission of the petitioner- landlord
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Pranjal M. Buch for learned
advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner-landlord
would submit that the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court both have committed jurisdictional error in not
appreciating the evidence came on record in correct
prospective, thereby erroneously dismissed the suit as well
as the appeal. It is respectfully submitted that landlord not
only proved on record that there is a change of the nature of
business by the tenants in regards to the rented premises, so
also, to show on record reasonable and bona-fide
requirement of landlord to have required vacant premises
for his personal use.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Buch would respectfully submit
that as per oral evidence led by the landlord so also
witnesses examined by the landlord, who confirmed that
tenant did change the nature of his business from laundry
business to travel agency and cable business. It is further
submitted that once such fact came on record which
remained unsubstantiated and or not discarded by the
tenant leading any contrary evidence, decree of eviction as
sought for by the landlord ought to have been granted in his
favour.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Buch would further submit that it
remains undisputed on record that landlord was survived by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
his wife and married daughter, and in his advance age, he
needs to have a company of his children i.e. married
daughter/grand children who needs to be occupied in his
house and for which, rented premises bare need of landlord.
It is respectfully submitted that when the appropriate
evidence led by the landlord to that effect that there is no
other accommodation available with the landlord to
accommodate his family members, decree as prayed for the
on the ground of bona-fide and reasonable requirement,
requires to have been granted.
5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Buch would further submit that
tenant has admitted in his evidence that he has purchased
flat and residing with his family in such flat, thereby, there is
no bona-fide and reasonable requirement of tenant to
occupy rented premises rather balance of convenience
would tilt in favour of the landlord.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Buch would respectfully submit
that afore submitted aspect of the matter not properly
appreciated by the Courts below thereby, there is gross error
committed by the Courts below, requires to be corrected by
this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdictional.
5.5 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Buch would submit that as
on date, there is also a requirement of rented premises by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the legal heirs of original landlord, inasmuch it would be
difficult for the grand children of landlord to stay in small
house and considering the future need also, this Court may
consider it appropriate and grant prayers so made in the suit.
5.6 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Buch would request this Court to allow the present Revision
Application.
Submission of the respondent-tenants.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt, at the
outset, would submit that the present revision application
having so filed against the current findings of two Courts
below, should not be entertained by this Court in its limited
revisional jurisdiction while exercising its power under
Section 29(2) of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging-House
Rates Control Act, 1947. It is submitted that there is no
jurisdictional error much less any gross error committed by
the trial Court and or the appellate Court while rejecting the
claim of the landlord. So, this Court should reject the revision
filed at the instance of landlord having lost his battle before
the two Courts below.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt would respectfully
submit that the landlord is miserably failed to prove his claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
having not proved any of the issues so germane in the suit. It
is submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate
Court has properly appreciated the evidence came on record
and as such there is no erroneous or perverse finding
recorded either by the trial Court or the appellate Court
while adjudicating the suit and appeal as the case may be. So,
there is no requirement to interfere with such findings of
facts in revisional jurisdiction so vested with this Court.
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt would further
submit that it has come on record that there would be an
admission on the part of the landlord and his witness that on
date of which such evidence was recorded, the tenant was
using rented premises for laundry business. It is submitted
that there would be nothing on record to show and in fact
not proved by the landlord that rented premises was not
used for laundry work and nature of business changed by
tenant from laundry business to travel agency and or cable
business. It is submitted that finding of fact to that effect
recorded by the Courts below should not be interfered with.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt would further
submit that the witness was examined by the landlord not
supported the case of the landlord, inasmuch as in his cross
examination, he was unable to confirm that tenant was in
fact running any travel agency and or doing any cable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
business from the rented premises. It is submitted that when
Panchnama was drawn by Court Commissioner, it comes on
record that laundry table and Iron, was found having so
recorded by the Court Commissioner would confirm that the
tenant has not changed his business.
6.4 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt would further
submit that to feed the family of more than nine persons,
tenant had to have work hard thereby, his shop was kept
open from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. It is submitted for all these
much long hours, if the tenant working at rented premises,
having found kitchen utensil etc to warm his food/preparing
tea etc. in that small rented room, it cannot be termed as
using premises as residence. It is respectfully submitted that
undisputedly the area rented is 10x10 ft. wherein the family
of nine persons could not have been accommodated. In fact,
rented premises having no facility of urinal and other
facilities available.
6.5 Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt would further
submit that when rented premises was given on rent for
business purpose, reasonable and bona-fide requirement of
landlord as pleaded, al-beit, not proved could not have been
available to the landlord. It is submitted that as per case of
the landlord, he allegedly required rented premises to
accommodate his married daughter who admitted in her
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
evidence that she is residing along with her husband in her
own matrimonial house, which is nearby to the rented
premises. It is also submitted that the landlord has also
occupied one of room on ground floor and one at upper
floor and so also having a seller which would consist of an
area of two rooms. It is respectfully submit that considering
the said fact came on record, it can be gainsaid, the trial
Court has not committed any error of law in arriving at the
conclusion that there is no reasonable and bona-fide
requirement of landlord to get back rented premises.
6.6 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Brahmbhatt would request this Court not to entertain the
present revision application.
7. No other and further submissions being made.
Point for determination
The short question falls for my consideration as to,
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, is there any jurisdictional error committed either by the
appellate Court or the trial Court while dismissing the appeal
or suit respectively filed by the landlord ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Analysis
8. Before adverting the issue germane in the matter, I
would first like to observe that the scope and ambit of
interference of this Court while exercising its revisional
jurisdictional under Section 29(2) of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and
Lodging-House Rates Control Act, 1947 is very minimal.
Unless, it has been shown and proved on record by the
petitioner/ revisionist that there is jurisdictional error
committed by the trial Court and or the appellate Court
while passing judgement/decree, this Court in its revisional
power cannot and should not interfere with the findings of
facts so recorded by the Courts below.
9. To better understand such legal aspect, it would be
profitable and to rely upon the following decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
9.1 In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78,
wherein after revisiting the scope of Revision vis-a-vis
Jurisdiction of Revisional Court under Rent Control Act, held
thus :-
"28. Before we consider the matter further to find out the scope and
extent of revisional jurisdiction under the above three Rent Control
Acts, a quick observation about the 'appellate jurisdiction' and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
'revisional V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9
SCC 606] Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally
and Ors.; [(2009) 15 SCC 528] jurisdiction' is necessary. Conceptually,
revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice-
versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has an inherent right
of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation of suit or original
proceeding, as the case may be. The power of the appellate court is
co-extensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction
involves re-hearing on facts and law but such jurisdiction may be
limited by the statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction. On
the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is a part of appellate
jurisdiction but ordinarily it cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged
appeal. In other words, revision is not continuation of suit or of original
proceeding. When the aid of revisional court is invoked on the
revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters
provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision is
provided against an order passed by the tribunal/appellate authority,
the decision of the revisional court is the operative decision in law. In
our view, as regards the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction,
much would, however, depend on the language employed by the
statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction.
xxxxxx
43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts
entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by
the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-
appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the
Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the
evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts
is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the
Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any
error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if
perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material
evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the
evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would
result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is
not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control
Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the
correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned
before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,
correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order,
the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-
appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding
on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the
power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the
decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order
impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."
(emphasis supplied)
9.2 Likewise, in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal and
others Vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (Dead) through Lrs.
reported in 199 (1) GLR 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court having
appreciated the scope and ambit of Section 29(2) of Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging-House Rates Control Act, 1947,
held thus :-
"5. The ambit and scope of the said section came up for
consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed
Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others: (1987) 3 SCC 538 and after
referring to a catena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a
distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the
courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that
the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on
questions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to
appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear
a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided according
to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had wider
powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could only be
exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the
decision under challenge before it is according to law. the High Court
cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
recorded by the courts below on reappraisal of evidence. did the High
Court exceed its jurisdiction?
6. The powers under section 29(2) are revisional powers with
which the High Court is clothed. It empowers the High Court to correct
errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors
go to the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with
the power to re-hear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence. The
mere fact that a different view is possible on re-appreciation of
evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court having clearly laid down law that there is a very
limited jurisdiction available with this Court while exercising
its power under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and
Lodging-House Rates Control Act, 1947.
11. Now, adverting to the facts germane in the matter,
which are recorded hereinabove are not in-dispute. The
landlord lost before the trial Court and the appellate Court
having not able to prove and satisfy the Courts below that
there was any breach of tenancy by tenant and so also not
proved his reasonable and bona-fide requirement of rented
premises. As such both the issues are depend upon the facts
which are required to be proved by the landlord.
12. Having so observed and submitted by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, it remains undisputed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
that rented premises was given for laundry business and
thereby, nature of tenancy was commercial in nature. The
landlord though examined his neighbour to prove the fact
that the tenant has changed the nature of his business but
unfortunately witness was not able to support the case of
the landlord having admitted in his cross examination that he
would not able to confirm that the tenant is in fact running
travel agency and so also cable business. The witness,
though residing in the society, where rented premises is
situated, and such evidence came on record. Likewise, the
landlord having so admitted in his cross examination that
tenant is still running laundry business would collapse his
entire case that there is change of nature of business of the
tenancy as alleged. As such, there is nothing on record to
show that landlord has satisfactory proved on record that
there was change of business by the tenant from laundry to
travel agency/ cable business.
13. In light of the aforesaid, when the trial Court as well as
the appellate Court found that such issue was not proved
and established on record, no fault can be found with such
findings so recorded by the Courts below. It is well settled as
noticed herein above, this Court cannot appreciated the
oral /documentary evidence came on record, unless there is
perversity on the part of the Courts below in arriving at any
finding so recorded during trial or at appellate stage.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
14. So far as another issue with regard to the reasonable
and bona-fide requirement of the landlord is concerned,
undisputedly, nature of tenancy is commercial in nature,
existed since 1966. The area of rented premises would be
10x10 ft. room, given to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs.
100/-. The tenant is using such rented premises for his
laundry business for which it was given to him. It is not even
the case of the landlord that till date, the tenant has tried to
sublet the premises in any manner whatsoever. The landlord
has claimed and he has not having any male member, who
can look after him, thus, required rented premises, thereby,
he can accommodate his married daughter.
15. To appreciate such aspect, it also requires to be
observed and noticed that apart from rented premises i.e.
10x10 ft. area, the landlord is occupying one room at ground
floor adjacent to rented premises, one room at upper floor,
and there is seller having an area of two rooms as this
evidence came on record in oral evidence of landlord/ his
witness. Further, it has been admitted by the daughter of
landlord that she is residing with her husband in her own
matrimonial house owned by her husband that too nearby
the house of landlord.
16. Per contra, it has also come on record that tenant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
having family of around nine persons, to whom the tenant
requires to look after. As such, when Courts below
concurrently held against landlord and not believed his case
as regard reasonable and bona-fide requirement, this Court
cannot oblivious from the fact that when need of landlord
vis-a-vis condition of tenant to be examined and appreciated
that too limited revisional jurisdiction, surely balance of
convenience would tilt in favour of tenant rather than
landlord.
17. According to my view, when the landlord let out rented
premises for commercial use, unless it is claimed by the
landlord that he required it for his personal business or for
such use vis-a-vis, the nature of tenancy, required by his
successor in interest, no decree on ground of his reasonable
and bona-fide requirement, could have been drawn against
tenant, and in favour of landlord. So far as his personal
occupation of other part of his house than rented premises
appears to be self-sufficient to accommodate his successor
in interest. Thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court
to accept such plea at the instance of the revisionist, who
lost before the Courts below.
18. In any case, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the present case and having also observed
herein above, I am also of the view that need and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/218/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
requirement of tenant is much large than requirement of
landlord. Accordingly, landlord miserably failed to prove his
reasonable and bonafide requirement of rented premises.
19. Having considered all these aspects and keeping in
mind the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Apex
Court, I am of the view that there is no merit is the present
revision application which requires to be rejected.
Conclusion
20. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, there
is no merit in the present revision application, thus, it is
hereby rejected. Consequently the order passed by the trial
Court so confirmed by the appellate Court are hereby
confirmed. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
