JUDGMENT :

1. This Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rent Act’) the applicant-tenant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Rajkot dated 18.7.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 2000 whereby the suit filed by the respondents – original plaintiffs came to be allowed and the defendant was ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises to the original plaintiffs within a period of 1 month from the date of that order.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant – tenant in the suit preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.66 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed by the learned appellate Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2019 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3. This Revision Application is filed challenging the aforesaid two judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court as also confirmed by the appellate Court, as aforesaid.

4. Parties in this judgment would be referred to as per their original status in the trial.

5.1 It is the case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court that the suit godown was let to the defendant by executing a rent agreement dated 10.4.1991 for storage of LPG gas cylinders, situated in Rajkot city ad-measuring 1050 Sq. Mtrs. on Gondal Road. The defendant was irregular in payment of rent and there was an arrears of it for about 120 months @ Rs.2500/- per month, which comes to Rs.3 Lacs. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that he issued notice on 23.5.2000 to the defendant purporting to terminate the tenancy. Therefore, plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for getting the vacant possession of the suit premises on the ground that defendant was in arrears of rent for more than 6 months as provided under Section 12 of “the Rent Act”. He also claimed recovery of Rs.3 Lacs towards the rent as also Rs.10,466/- towards the taxes.. Thus in all Rs.3,10,466/- were demanded from the tenant over and above the vacant possession of the suit premises, as aforesaid. It is averred in the suit that on receipt of the notice, the defendant gave evasive reply to the same.

5.2 On filing of such suit and issuance of summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement vide Exh.21 denying each and every allegations of the plaintiffs in toto. The defendant has denied to have taken on rent the suit premises but admitted the execution of the rent agreement. It is further claimed in the written statement that the claim in respect of amount of rent is time barred. It is also contended that if agreement was executed only for 11 months, why plaintiffs had not initiated any action till the date of the suit? On the contrary, as per the case of the defendant, suit premises was not taken on rent but it was purchased from the father of the plaintiffs. Since it was not possible to execute a sale deed, rent agreement came to be executed to give legal identity to the transaction and possession of the suit premises is not handed over as a tenant but as an owner of the property. It is further contended by the defendant that to show the status of possession of the suit premises before gas company, rent agreement came to be executed and therefore provisions of “the Rent Act” are not applicable to the suit premises. He has specifically averred that in the year 1990, defendant was in need of premises for gas agency and as the suit premises was to be declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 (for short, “ULC Act”), the father of the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit premises with an intention to transfer the possession of the suit premises but since permission to sell the same was not possible and registered sale-deed was also not possible, it was agreed to sell the suit premise for consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- and possession of the same was h