Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Lalitkumar Madanlal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Savitaben And Sons & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 18287 of 2023
Decided on : 25-04-2024
Rent Act - Civil Suit - Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - [Order XIV Rule 5 of the C.P.C.] - The court allowed the petition challenging the deletion of issue No.5, which was framed under the Rent Act, as it found that the trial court had not properly considered the materials available on the record and committed an error. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and it was directed that issue No.5 should be considered during the course of the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for non-payment of rent and municipal taxes. After the death of the original defendant, his legal heirs were brought on record. The petitioner filed an application to add two issues to the suit, which was rejected. The respondents then filed an application to strike down issue No.5, which was allowed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not properly considered the materials available on the record and committed an error in deleting issue No.5. It allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed that issue No.5 should be considered during the trial.
Issues: The main issue was the deletion of issue No.5, which was framed under the Rent Act, and whether the trial court had properly considered the materials available on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court had not properly considered the materials available on the record and committed an error in deleting issue No.5, which required interference by considering the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and it was directed that issue No.5 should be considered during the course of the trial.
ORDER :
1. The present petition is filed by the present petitioner – original plaintiff by challenging the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed below Exh.82 application in H.R.P. Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6, whereby the same was allowed, which was filed by the defendants and issue No.5 framed vide Exh.13 came to be deleted.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are that the respondents, namely, Gunvantbhai Raval, who was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the property situated at Ahmedabad city, Usmanpura, Mouje Wadaj, TP Scheme No.15, Final Plot No.18, Shree Niketan Cooperative Housing Society, Sub-Plot No.2, was given on rent. Since the deceased Gunvantbhai Raval did not pay the municipal tax and other amount of rent, he became tenant in arrears and, therefore, the present petitioner has filed HRP Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad against the present defendants on 14.5.2015. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that originally, the suit was filed against Savitaben & Sons (Sandip Provision Raval Store), partner Gunvantbhai service. Upon summons on 30.09.2015, the written statement was filed and issues has been framed. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted the deposition on 7.5.2016 and cross-examination of the petitioner was over on 11.1.2017. Thereafter, on 14.4.2017, said Gunvantbhai Raval passed away and on 18.7.2017, the legal heirs of deceased Gunvantbhai Raval had been brought on record, who are the defendants and respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4 herein. The respondent No.1/1 is the widowed wife, respondent No.1/2/3 are the sons and respondent No.1/4 is married daughter. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that after the demise of the defendant Gunvantbhai Raval and the legal heirs had been brought on record, and on 25.6.2018, the petitioner filed an application contending that two issues are to be added to the issues already framed and, therefore, an application was filed. To the aforesaid application, no reply was filed and on 25.9.2018, the same had been rejected.
It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that one of the suggested issues was already framed vide Issue No.5, and so far as the second issue which was to be re-cast according to the petitioner, it observed that there is no such averment and amendment application is preferred and, therefore, such issue cannot be framed at a particular stage. Therefore, such order dated 25.9.2018 was not challenged. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed an application vide Exh.45 and sought to produce so many new documents, which were never produced during the lifetime of deceased Gunvantbhai Raval. The petitioner objected for production of such documents which had straightway been exhibited by the court below which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court by filing SCA No.3163 of 2020, which came to be withdrawn upon the observations made by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2020. Thereafter, on 4.10.2020, further deposition of the petitioner was filed as legal heirs were joined to the proceedings and the cross-examination thereof is to commence. The examination-in-chief submitted on 4.10.2020 has been exhibited vide Exh.81. Thereafter, on 10.3.2022, the present respondents filed an application Exh.82 to struck down the Issue No.5. The said application was objected by the petitioner by filing the reply on 30.4.2022. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6 has allowed the application Exh.82 filed by the defendants and issue No.5 framed vide Exh.13 had been deleted.
Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 15.9.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6, below application Exh.82 in HRP Suit No.317 of 2015, the present petition has been pre
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court's decision to delete issue No.5, framed under the Rent Act, was found to be erroneous and required interference by the higher ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, all amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be al....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to allow the framing of additional issues in a suit, despite the opposition of the Respondent, when it deems it necessary for....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel, where the tenant's acceptance of the landlord's ownership through various actions and documents led to the dismissal of ....
A tenant denying rent is not required to deposit until the court adjudicates the issue of tenancy, as per Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is no longer res integra that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that he had not defaulted in payment of rent in order to get the protection under section 5 (1) of Assam Urban Area Rent Co....
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
