The petitioner is the original plaintiff who preferred HRP suit no. 352 of 2007 before the small cause court Ahmedabad for declaration to an effect that he be declared tenant of the suit premises seeking further direction of restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and dispossessing him from the suit premises without following the due process of law.

2. The initial grant of the order of status quo came to be subsequently vacated, which was however continued to enable the petitioner to approach the higher forum.

3. Being aggrieved by such an order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal from Order no. 82 of 2007 before the Appellate Bench Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, wherein the Appellate Bench vide its order dated 28th February 2008 dismissed the Appeal. Such an order has been challenged by way of the present petition enumerating various grounds for such a challenge.

4. It is the say of the petitioner that the Bungalow no. 12 of Pahelgav Bungalows of Premdeep Co-Operative Housing Society Limited was let out to the petitioner as tenant by the respondent no. 1 through the respondent no. 2 at monthly rent of Rs. 5000/-; excluding taxes and maintenance of the Society with a deposit of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 1st July 2001 and the petitioner and his family members are in physical possession of the suit premises till the date. The sister of the petitioner is also running a Beauty Saloon; the respondent no. 1 is residing abroad and the respondent no. 2 is the administrator and rent collector, collects the rent from the petitioner from the time the same has been rented to him.

5. It is the say of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 is not issuing the rent receipts and that the rent has been paid till 31st December 2006 and in January 2007, the respondent no. 2 refused to accept the rent and demanded higher rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

6. Learned senior advocate Shri Sunit Shah appearing with Mr. N.V. Gandhi vehemently made his submissions by emphasizing the facts that the petitioner is in a continued settled legal possession. He further submitted that both the courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent stay across the street and the petitioner runs a beauty salon and therefore, inference needs to be drawn that the respondents would be aware of the settled legal possession. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions;-

[a] In case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernanades & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) Through L.Rs., reported in 2012 STPL (Web) 181 SC;

[b] In case of Wander Limited & Anr. v. Antrox India P. Limited, reported in 1990 (Suppl) SCC 727;

[c] In case of Premji Ratansey Shah & Ors. v. Union of India, reported in [(1994) 5 SCC 547];

[d] In case of Rame Gowda (dade) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. & Anr., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769.

[e] In case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Sriman Narayan & Anr., reported in [(2002) 5 SCC 760;

6.1. He accordingly urged that this settled legal possession of the petitioner shall need to be protected by this court.

6.2. Learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahva urged that there is no agreement nor any tenancy document nor any lease and even not a single document of the rent receipt on the record of the matter. She further urged that there is not a single document to hold the possession in favour of the petitioner. Again, she urged that this court is not required to entertain this petition as there is no error or illegality could cause grave injustice to the present petitioner.

7. As can be noted, the learned Single Judge as well as the appellate bench of Small Cause Court both chose not to protect the possession of the petitioner on the ground that though the plaintiff petitioner is in physical possession of the property but he poorly failed to establish that he possesses the property as a lawful tenant, in absence of any evidence showing the tenancy of suit premises. T