Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, C.J., D.N.Ray, J.
Gurumukhdas Bhagamal Ramchandani - Shop No - 44 & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1107 of 2021 In R/Special Civil Application No. 8864 of 2016 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2021 With R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1110 of 2021 In R/Special Civil Application No. 9143 of 2016
Decided On : 17-07-2025
For the Appellant :Mr Mehul Sharad Shah, Mr Maharshi Patel, Advocate For HL Patel Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms Hetal Patel, Assistant Government Pleader, Mr Abhijit Rathod, Advocate For Mr Mehul H Rathod
Acceptance of rent establishes a landlord-tenant relationship, thus affording occupants rights to occupy shops despite claimed lease cancellations.
Headnote:(A) The relevant laws discussed include the Lease Agreements and the principles governing landlord-tenant relationships. The key legal principle is that acceptance of rent establishes a landlord-tenant relationship regardless of subsequent lease cancellations. The factual context involves 84 individuals claiming rights to occupy shops leased from a municipal body, highlighting disputes over lease validity and rights after rent acceptance ceased in 2008. The main issue addressed by the court is the entitlement of these individuals to continue occupying the shops or to be allotted alternative accommodation, framed as an inquiry into their legal status. The court's reasoning emphasizes the need for factual inquiry into the rights of the occupants and directs that individual claims for alternative shop allotments be filed, leading to timely, reasoned decisions from the municipal authorities. In conclusion, it is stated that a fresh inquiry is necessary to resolve eligibility for alternative accommodations based on original occupancy rights. (Paras 1-14).
Result: Appeals disposed with directions for individual claim filing and inquiry.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. occupants have established landlord-tenant relationship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. nagar palika must provide alternative accommodations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. conditions around eligibility and rent demands. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. fresh inquiry required for determining eligibility. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. directions for processing claims and ensuring cooperation. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
Sunita Agarwal, C.J.
1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record, we find that the submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the Nagar Palika is based on the observations and directions contained in the orders dated 20.12.2021; 16.06.2022; 28.06.2022 and lastly on 13.07.2022 passed by this Court in the present set of appeals.
2. We may note that the appellants namely the original petitioners are 84 in numbers [in two sets of appeals], who claim to be occupiers of the shops in question on a lease given by the Nagar Palika namely Kalol Nagar Palika, Kalol, Gandhinagar. There are rival allegations of the parties, inasmuch as, the contention of the respondent – Nagar Palika is that the original lessees have parted away with their leasehold rights in the shops in question and third parties rights have been created without the permission of the Nagar Palilka. Whereas the petitioners [84 in numbers] who are occupiers of the shops in question would submit that they are entitled to either continue to occupy the shops in question or are eligible for allotment of alternative accommodation by the Nagar Palika as they cannot be termed as unauthorized occupants being the lessees or their heirs or transferees from the original lessees from whom rent has been accepted by the Nagar Palika.
3. In various orders passed by this Court as noted herein above, it was noted that the dispute was with regard to the fact of the occupation of the shops in question by the original lessees or their heirs. The case of the Nagar Palika is that the Nagar Palika had stopped receiving rent from the occupants on or after 31.03.2008. However, it is admitted that the lease of none of the occupants who had paid rent to the Nagar Palika upto 31.03.2008 had been cancelled. The further contention of the learned counsel for the Nagar Palika is that the original leases have already been cancelled in the year 1979, however, it would be of no relevance in view of the admission of the Nagar Palika that the occupants at the relevant point of time had paid rent and it was accepted by the Nagar Palika uptil 31.03.2008. This Court finds it pertinent to note that with the receipt of the rent by the Nagar Palika without any demur from the occupiers, the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established. The Nagar Palika cannot be permitted to contend that the occupiers from whom the rent was receiving by the Nagar Palika upto 31.03.2008 are to be branded as unauthorized occupants or can be termed as the lessees who were illegally occupying the shops after their leases were cancelled.
4. It would also pertinent to note that in the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in this appeal, a direction was issued to the Nagar Palika to carry out an exercise for providing alternative accommodations to the original occupants from whom the Nagar Palika [Kalol Municipality] was accepting the rent upto 31.03.2008.
5. It seems that, thereafter, some inquiry was conducted by the Nagar Palika and from the order dated 13.07.2022 of this Court, it is pertinent is to note that there was a factual dispute with regard to the occupation of the shops in question by the original occupants or their legal heirs who had paid rent to the Nagar Palika up till 31.03.2008. The rival contentions of the learned advocate for the appellants about the right of the occupants to seek allotment of alternative accommodation vis-a-vis stand of the Nagar Palika that after 31.03.2008, some of the shops in question were handed over to the third parties by the original occupants, have been noted in the
