IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with lease agreements, the applicability of eviction laws, and the interpretation of exemption provisions under the Gujarat Rent Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Appeal no.127 of 2022 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand in Regular Civil Suit no.97 of 2019.

2. Facts of the case suggest that the Original Plaintiff had, in the year 2015, from 16.05.2015 to 15.04.2016, rented the Suit Property to the Original Defendant i.e. the present appellant for a monthly rent of Rs.6500/- with a notarised agreement. Thereafter, again by notarised agreements between the Original Plaintiff and the Original Defendant on 25.4.2016, the period decided was from 1.5.2017 to 31.5.2017. On 3.8.2017, the rent agreement was drawn for the period between 1.8.2017 to 31.6.2018. The last agreement executed on 1.9.2018, was agreed to lease the Suit Property on rent from 01.07.2018 to 30.10.2018. Therefore, time limit of the agreement expired on 30.10.2018. Thereafter, the Original Plaintiff asked the Original Defendant to vacate the house and return the vacant peaceful possession of the house. The Original Defendant requested the Original Plaintiff to give three to four months time to vacate the Suit Property and also paid rent till Feb-2019. Thereafter, when the Original Defendant did not vacate the house beyond February-2019, again the Original Plaintiff directed the Original Defendant to vacate the Suit Property and also demanded the rent of February-2019, March-2019 and April-2019. The Original Defendant did not vacate the suit property and also did not pay the rent.

3. The main contention of Advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for the appellant was that the First Appellate Court committed an error of law and facts by not observing that there was no compliance of the provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the T.P. Act”). If the status of a tenant i.e. of the present appellant is required to be considered as tenant holding over, then minimum fifteen days notice is required to be given before filing of the suit.

4. Advocate Mr. Barot contended that the exemption under the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘Gujarat Rent Act’) is required to be pleaded specifically and without pleading benefit of exemption of non-applicability of the Rent Act cannot be given.

5. That the First Appellate Court as well the Trial Court committed an error by not appreciating and interpreting the evidence and procedure in right perspective. Both the Courts have erred in not considering the appellant as tenant by virtue of the agreement and has erred to put him in the status of trespasser and that there cannot be any eviction without due process of law.

6. Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that entertaining purshis Exh.145 at the fag end of the trial, whereby the plaintiff or landlord has waived his ground of bonafide requirement, is an error of the Trial Court when actually the suit was filed under the provision of Section 13 of the Gujarat Rent Act. Advocate Mr. Barot submitted that there was no amendment in the plaint nor was any additional evidence adduced, when the trial started with recording of evidence under the Rent Act and thus, the Trial Court has committed an error in deciding the suit under the general civil law.

6.1 Advocate Mr. Barot has placed reliance on the following judgments to support his arguments.

(a) Govindbhai Parshottamdas Patel & Ors. v. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad, 1983 (0) AIJEL-HC 203831.

(b) Nanubhai Paragji v. Chhaganlal Ranchhodji Desai, LAWS (GJH) 1993 6 14.

(c) Sarabhai Parshottamdas Patel v. New Shorock Mills, Nadiad, 1984 GLH (UJ) 2.

(d) Rameshbhai Babarbhai Jagirdar v. Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Joshi, LAWS (GJH) 1996 7 41.

(e) Om Parkash v. Ashok Kumar, LAWS (P&H) 2013 8 524.

7. Per contra, Advocate Mr. Manan K. Paneri