The tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation prior to the eviction suit barred the landlord's claim due to the limitation period under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both parties, the revision is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The present revision has been filed under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Rent Act’) challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Bench dated 21.03.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2022 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court in H.R.P. Suit No.767 of 2013. The revisionist is the tenant and the opponents are the landlords. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are stated before learned Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present revision application are as under.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that respondents vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.2000 purchased the suit premises from its original owner namely Chandrakant Shah with sitting tenant i.e. Manharlal Dhruv. Said Manharlal Dhruv filed H.R.P. Suit No.334 of 2001 before Small Causes court seeking injunction. Pending the said suit, said Manharlal Dhruv expired on 13.05.2001 and his heirs were brought on record. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2008 allowed the suit by permanently restraining the respondents from taking forcible possession of the suit premises. Thereafter, respondents instituted H.R.P. Suit No.767 of 2013 against the respondents. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2013 directed the defendants to maintain status-quo. Thereafter, learned Trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiffs-landlord in part on the ground that defendants have acquired alternative suitable accommodation. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2022 before learned Appellate Court who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 21.03.2024. Hence, the present civil revision application.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi appearing for the petitioner – tenant and learned advocate Mr.Kunjal Pandya appearing for the respondents – landlords.

5. Learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for the tenant has raised various contentions to assail the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. Firstly amongst them is that the suit of the plaintiff for seeking peaceful and vacant possession filed under the provisions of the Rent Act is obviously barred by law of limitation. Extending this contention, learned advocate Mr.Gandhi submits that landlord has purchased the demise premises in the year 2000 with the sitting tenant. He would submit that the tenant was occupying rented premises since 1990. He would further submit that prior to purchase of the demise premises by landlord, the tenant has purchased immovable property at J-12, New Nikita Park Society, Nr. Sun and Step Club, Nr.Nirantpark Society, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. He would submit that landlords were knowing purchase of this property since they have purchased the demise premises but suit for seeking eviction of the tenant was filed in the year 2013. He submits that the landlords had knowledge that the tenant has acquired alternative accommodation much prior to filing of the suit, precisely the landlords had knowledge for more than 12 years that the tenant has purchased another property, yet the landlords have not filed the suit for recovery of the possession within 12 years from the date of the knowledge and which indicates that suit is obviously barred by law of limitation. He would further submit that Article 67 of the Limitation Act applies in the present case and it defines limitation to recover the possession of the rented premises as 12 years. He would submit that learned Trial Court failed to address this legal issue as the learned Trial Court has not framed the issue of law of limitation. The first Appellate Court though has framed point of determination in regard to law of limitation, learned Appellate Court fail