The acceptance of rent after lease termination does not create a new tenancy; the tenant's status becomes that of a trespasser, not a statutory tenant.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit no. 176 of 2012, who had filed the suit for eviction, which came to be allowed on 11.1.2018 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Patan. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant of the suit had preferred Regular Civil Appeal no. 8 of 2018, since the appeal was allowed on 29.11.2019, aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the original plaintiff is before this Court in the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) as an appellant.

2. The present appellant – plaintiff had urged before the learned Trial Court that he has purchased a shop no. 4/G in City Point Commercial Complex, Patan vide registered Sale Deed dated 7.1.2010. Thereafter on 14.6.2011, he entered into a rent agreement and let the premises on monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- for a period of 11 months and 29 days. After the determination of the said period, the plaintiff as owner of the property did not opt to renew the lease agreement and sought vacant, peaceful possession of the shop, contending that he was in genuine need. The plaintiff had further before the learned Trial Court pleaded about breach of condition mentioned in the agreement, alleging that the defendant had been using the subject premises for illegal purpose, and an FIR being II-CR no.143/12 dated 12.5.2012 was registered with “B” Division Police Station, Patan City for the offence punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff pleaded that on failure of the defendant to vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff had sent a notice for eviction dated 20.7.2012. The defendant did not chose to vacate the shop and gave a vague reply to the notice.

3. The plaintiff on 12.10.2012 filed a suit for eviction being Regular Civil Suit no.176 of 2012. The suit was partly allowed and the defendant was ordered to hand over the possession of the subject suit premises.

4. The present appellant, being the owner of the suit premises, has raised the ground inter alia, stating that the First Appellate Court has erred in mis-reading the rent agreement Exh.40 and that the Court has come to a wrong conclusion that the agreement cannot be said to be concluded, since it does not bear the date of execution. It has been contended that during the original suit proceedings, no such dispute was raised, regarding the date of agreement as 14.6.2011, which was for duration of 11 months and 29 days as specifically mentioned therein.

5. Further raised the ground that the First Appellate Court has erred in holding that the landlord is not entitled to have possession over the suit property since the rent agreement is silent on the aspect of handing over the possession after determination of the agreement. It has been urged that the Court failed to observe that the premises was let on rent for a specific period of 11 months and 29 days and there has been no renewal.

6. Further a ground has been raised that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in applying the provisions of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘Gujarat Rent Act’) and has failed to notice that the premises was let after the commencement of the Amending Act, 2001, and that the learned Appellate Court has mechanically applied the provisions of the Gujarat Rent Act inspite there being a specific bar under the said Act, and that no protection could be granted to the respondent.

7. The First Appellate Court had formulated nine points for determination:-

(A) Whether the respondent - original plaintiff has proved before the Trial Court that he is the owner of the subject premises and the same was let on rent for Rs.5,500/- p.m. to the appellant-original defendant for 11 months and 29 days by executing a rent agreement on 14.6.2011?

(B) Whether the respondent - original plaintiff has proved before the Trial Court that on expiry of the period of the rent agreement, the appellant-origina