Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Transfer of Property Act, and eviction must follow legal requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Both these second appeals are filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) by the original plaintiff. Second Appeal No. 257 of 2023 is arising from Regular Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2004 arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 186 of 1993, whereas Second Appeal No. 258 of 2023 is arising from Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2004 arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 266 of 1996. The common order passed in both the Regular Civil Suits dated 1.5.2004 by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural and the common order passed in both the Regular Civil Appeals dated 20.4.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court i.e. 8th Additional District Court, Ahmedabad Rural are challenged by way of these second appeals, by raising the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether in the facts of the present case the Agreement dated 28.05.1962 is an agreement with monthly license or a monthly lease hold rights giving document?

2. The Appellant being the monthly tenant without termination of the tenancy under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act whether such summary proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction Act could be resorted by the landlord absolutely without giving proper opportunity to establish title as a tenant in the subject land?

3. In the facts of the present case an unconditional undertaking in a writ proceedings on oath was given by the competent authority of the respondent-Ahmedabad Cantonment Board that the appellant will be given 30 x 30 ft alternative site and based on that the petition having being disposed of, can the respondent refuse to give alternative site without any legal justification and whether the respondent is estopped, from asking the appellant to vacate the premises held on monthly rent?

4. Having regard to the proprietary claim of the monthly tenant, of the appellant the authority ought to have resorted to a regular title suit in competent civil court as per the provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act 1959 or Public Premises Eviction Act 1972?

5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when the appellant is in the settled possession since 1962 as a monthly tenant, whether such status of the appellant is in the nature of tenancy by holding over which cannot be snatched away without following procedure under the Transfer of Property Act?

6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the monthly tenancy of the appellant and there readiness to pay rent as agreed between the parties, comes to an end automatically by efflux of time or termination of tenancy under Transfer of Property Act is a sine qua non to any purported eviction?

7. Whether the appellate Court has committed a jurisdictional error in not following the provisions of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure which are mandatory in nature as held in K Karuppuraj Vs M Ganesan reported in 2021(10) SCC 777 and whether the lower appellate Court having not followed as to how and in which manner the First Appellate Court has to decide appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and have failed to discharge the obligation vested on it on the basis of which the judgment and decree of Ld. First Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and whether the matter requires to be remanded to the First Appellate Court to frame points of determination in accordance with Order 41 Rule 11, 14, 15, 31 and 33 of the CPC as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in several cases including judgment in Second Appeal No. 104 of 2003 decided on 03.10.2022."

2. As the common judgment and order passed by the learned first appellate court and the learned trial court is under challenge in these second appeals, the facts are same, arguments advanced are same, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts, as stated in the memo of the appeals, are such that the case of the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 186 o