SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.
Kiran Ramanlal Inamdar - Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Housing Board – Respondent
R/Second Appeal No. 104 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Jani, Sr. Adv. for M/s. Vyas Associates.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.H. Virk.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal involving breach of allotment conditions - Appellant challenged concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts regarding possession and sub-letting of housing premises - Dishonorable appeal dismissed, as no substantial question of law arose. The courts correctly determined that the appellant had parted with possession without obtaining necessary permissions. (Paras 6.1, 6.6, and 7)

(B) Evidence Act - Application of evidence in proving possession rights - Merely exhibiting documents does not suffice; contents must be proved - Appellant failed to substantiate claims about possession or permissions. (Para 6.19)

(C) Housing Allotment Regulations - Appellant’s transfer affected his eligibility for occupancy - Breach of contractual stipulations led to dismissal of claims. (Para 6.20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, originally a junior clerk with Gujarat Housing Board, occupied a housing allotment. Claims for ownership and injunction against eviction were filed after being alleged to have sublet the premises. Lower courts dismissed the suit, citing insufficient evidence from the appellant.

Findings of Court:
Courts recorded that appellant had not only transferred control of the premises but failed to provide adequate evidence against alleged sub-letting. Conditions of the allotment order were not honored, leading to the suit’s dismissal.

Issues: Whether appellant's claim of maintaining permissive user status was valid in light of evidence suggesting he parted with possession and breached terms of the allotment order.

Ratio Decidendi: High court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law. It reiterated that concurrent factual findings by lower courts are binding unless proven erroneous or perverse.

Result: Second appeal dismissed with no substantial question of law present.

Table of Content
1. appellant challenges prior judgments. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding evidence and legal standards. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's rationale on findings and limitations. (Para 6)

ORDER :

1. By way of this second appeal, the appellant – original plaintiff has challenged the judgement and decree dated 28/2/2023 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021 upholding the judgement and decree dated 21/7/2020 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.444 of 2009 inter-alia dismissing the suit filed by the appellant.

2. Factual aspect of the case are as under :-

2.1. That the appellant – plaintiff was appointed as a Junior Clerk in Gujarat Housing Board, Surat and he was allotted residential premises being House No.1981, Keshavkunj 24, M.I.G. Staff Quarters, situated at Sachin, Surat by the Gujarat Housing Board, Surat vide allotment order dated 3/12/1992.

2.2. The appellant – original plaintiff preferred a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.444 of 2009 against the respondents– original defendants inter-alia seeking declaration inasmuch as transfer of ownership rights with respect to the suit premises in favour of the appellant from the respondent and further sought permanent injunction.

2.3. In the aforesaid suit, Written Statement was filed by the defendants vide 16 and the trial court framed Issues at Ex.21. Upon adducing the evidence and appreciating the evidence, the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat dismissed the Regular Civil Suit No.444 of 2009 vide judgement and decree dated 21/7/2020.

2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.444 of 2009 dated 21/7/2020, the appellant – original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021 before the Principal District Judge, Surat which came to be dismissed by the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2022.

2.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the first appellate court passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021, the appellant preferred Second Appeal No.301 of 2022 before this Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed and set aside the judgement and decree dated 29/4/2022 passed by the first appellate court and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh and also directed the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property.

2.6. Thereafter, on remand, the matter was heard and the learned 3rd Additional District Judge Surat vide judgement and decree dated 28/2/2023 dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 2021 upholding the judgement and order dated 21/21/7/2020 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.444 of 2009.

2.7. Against the aforesaid judgement and decree passed by the first appellate court on remand, the appellant herein – original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. Heard Mr.P.K. Jani, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of M/s.Vyas Associates for the appellant and Mr.G.H. Virk, learned advocate for the respondents.

4. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT :

4.1. Mr.P.K. Jani, learned senior advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned first appellate court has not considered the provision of law. It is submitted that the defendant – Gujarat Housing Board has come out with a case that the the property in question was parted with the possession by the appellant and that parting of the possession was with consideration and when the defendants came out with this defence of sub-letting the property, the basic and fundamental liability is on the defendant to prove the defence of subletting the property. He has submitted that as such, the aspect of sub-letting the property has not been proved. It is submitted that, however, the trial court and the first appellate court has failed to appreciate this aspect.

4.2. Mr.P.K. Jani, learned senior advocate for the appellant has further submitted that the learned first appellate court failed to appreciate that merely on exhibiting the documents, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top