The court established that service tenancies terminate upon cessation of employment, allowing landlords to reclaim possession without a formal tenancy agreement.

ORDER :

Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.

1. Applicants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in civil appeal no.102 of 2017 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicants has been rejected. In the appeal, subject matter of challenge, was the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed in H.R.P. suit no.652 of 2005. Suit was filed by the respondent no.1, inter alia, for getting possession of the quarters in possession of the applicants.

2. Mr Viral V. Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the issue revolved around the quarter no.22 situated at city taluka Ahmedabad, village Vastrapur, final plot no.18 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) of the ownership of the respondent no.1. The applicants are in possession of the suit property since last more than 50 years, as the husband of the applicant no.1 and father of the applicant nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased employee”), was working with the respondent no.2 and was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month inclusive of municipal tax. The rent was regularly being deducted from the salary of the deceased employee and even after the retirement, the rent was being paid through money order.

2.1 It is submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent no.1 seeking possession of the quarter on various grounds, namely, arrears of rent, bona fide requirement and the tenancy being a service tenancy. Suit came to be allowed solely on the ground that the deceased employee, was a service tenant of the suit property. Rest of the issues namely, arrears of rent and bona fide requirement, were decided against the respondent no.1. It is submitted that there was no agreement between the respondent no.1 and the deceased employee and therefore, the suit, could not have been filed. It is submitted that the trustees of the respondent no.1 have not entered the witness box. Neither they were examined nor cross examined except one Natwarlal Girdharbhai Panchal who had given the evidence, which, cannot be said to be a permissible evidence. Besides, the respondents have not produced any evidence and despite which, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, partly allowed the suit and directed the deceased employee to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the quarter and to pay mesne profit. Similarly, the Appellate Bench, also has committed an error inasmuch as, it failed to appreciate that trustees of the respondent no.1, had not entered the witness box. Therefore, it is urged that the judgments being erroneous, the present application deserves to be entertained.

3. Mr Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate appearing with Mr Shushil R. Shukla, learned advocate for the caveator - respondent no.1, has vehemently opposed the revision application. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was the employee of the respondent no.2. As the respondent no.2 was in need of the quarters for its employees, that the respondent no.1 agreed to allot its quarters with a specific understanding between the parties that it shall hand over the possession when required by the respondent no.1. The said understanding, is discernible from the document namely letter dated 16.12.1969 Exhibit 104. It indicates about the allotment of quarters namely, quarter nos.13 to 15 and 17 to 30 to the respondent no.2. It was also agreed between the parties that the rent and the municipal tax, shall be deducted from the salary of the employees whom the quarters would be allotted, with a further stipulation that the possession of the quarters shall be handed over to the society back, in case it needs the same for its staff members.

3.1 It is submitted that the Court has considered documents namely, Exhibit 74 – a communication dated 31.03.1997 addressed by the respondent no.2 indicating that the rent has been deducted from the salary of the staff members wherein, the name of the deceased employee has been referred to