Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.G.Uraizee, J.
Popular Estate Management Ltd - Appellant
Vs.
Gunjan Paints Ltd - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 8941 of 2021
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Rent Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 116 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is the key legal provision discussed by the court. The court interpreted the provision and its applicability to the case, emphasizing the acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease agreement and the requirement of due process of law. The court also discussed the judgments of Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himmatlal Jamnadas Dani and Shanti Prasad Devi v. Shankar Mahto, and their applicability to the present case. The court highlighted the distinction between cases where rent control legislation is in force and where it is not, emphasizing the relevance of Section 116 in cases where rent control law is not applicable.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a rent agreement for an office space in Ahmedabad. The respondent, as the lessor, sought to evict the petitioner, the lessee, after the expiration of the lease agreement. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking protection of peaceful possession of the property and an injunction against forcible dispossession. The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's applications, leading to the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the law and the application of relevant judgments. It emphasized the acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease agreement and the requirement of due process of law. The court held that the petitioner had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor, granting an interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the applicability of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, the acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease agreement, and the requirement of due process of law. The court also addressed the relevance of the judgments of Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himmatlal Jamnadas Dani and Shanti Prasad Devi v. Shankar Mahto to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease agreement and the requirement of due process of law. The court also highlighted the relevance of the judgments of Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himmatlal Jamnadas Dani and Shanti Prasad Devi v. Shankar Mahto, particularly in distinguishing cases where rent control legislation is in force and where it is not.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the orders of the lower courts and granted an interim injunction in favor of the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. The parties were also given liberty to move the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for writ of certiorari, and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari, and/or and other appropriate writ/order/direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed by learned 6th Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exhibit – 5 in R.C.S. No.23 of 2020 and to quash and set aside order dated 3.6.2021 passed by learned 9th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Misc. Civil Application No.21 of 2020.
2. I have heard Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Pithu Parimal, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate on caveat for respondent.
3. The petition is heard for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.
4. The facts giving rise to the present petition as could be gathered from the memo of petition and connected material are as under:-
4.2. In the year 1998, the Respondent had purchased the suit property. Thereafter, in the year 2010, the Respondent had given the office space to the Petitioner on rent, by way of a rent agreement dated 24.06.2010.
4.3. On 13.02.2012, the Respondent addressed a letter to the Petitioner whereby it has sought renewal of the rent agreement, and sought increase in rent from Rs.71,000/- to Rs.81,000/- per month. The petitioner agreed to proceed with rental of the suit premises at the increased rent of Rs.81,000/- per month.
4.4. On 19.06.2015, a second rent agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent and as part of the same, rent was increased to Rs.91,000/- per month.
4.5. After expiry of the second rent agreement, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an oral agreement, whereby the Respondent agreed to allow the Petitioner to rent the suit premises/property. The Petitioner has been paying timely cheques towards rent of the same, till date. Additionally, the Petitioner has throughout paid utility bill, maintenance chages etc. associated with the suit premises/property.
4.6. Suddenly in January, 2020, the Respondent arrived at the suit premises/property along with a bunch of goons. The Respondent and the goons misbehaved with the Petitioner and hurled abuses, even in the presence of female staff members. The said persons also forcefully trespassed into the suit premises and it was only upon the intervention of occupants of neighbouring office units that the said persons left the building.
4.7. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2020 before the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), wherein inter alia the Petitioner has prayed for peaceful possession of the suit property. The Petitioner has also moved an application below exh. 5, seeking injunction against the Respondent from evicting the Petitioner from the suit property.
4.8. Vide order dated 11.11.2020, the Ld. 6th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) was pleased to reject the application for injunction of the Petitioner, below exh. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.21 of 2020 before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).
4.9. On the same day, i.e. 11.05.2021, being aggrieved by the same the Petitioner moved another application below exh. 9 before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), seeking protection against illegal trespass by the Respondent herein. On 11.05.2021, the Petitioner also preferred a representation before the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad seeking protection against the illegal trespass by the Respondent.
4.10. On 03.06.2021, vid
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
