The court established that tenancy obligations persist despite a fixed-term lease expiry, emphasizing proper compliance with eviction notices as crucial for tenant protection.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. The draft amendment, being found just and necessary for the proper adjudication of the lis, is hereby permitted to be carried out forthwith.

2. The present Revision Application, preferred under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, “the Rent Act”), calls in question the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the Courts below, whereby the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and decree rendered in H.R.P. Suit No.121 of 2002, instituted by the landlord, directed the tenant–appellant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of two shop premises situated at Plot No.8, Viratnagar, Isanpur, Ahmedabad (for short, “the demised premises”). The said decree came to be affirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No.243 of 2007.

3. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated thus:-

3.1. The applicant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2007 rendered in H.R.P. Suit No. 121 of 2002 by the learned 10th Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, whereby the suit came to be decreed against him, preferred Civil Appeal No. 243 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The learned Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Being still aggrieved, the applicant preferred a Second Appeal on 30.09.2021 before this Court challenging both the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

3.2. In the meantime, the original plaintiff initiated Execution Petition No. 20 of 2021, pursuant to which the bailiff’s report dated 09.08.2021 recorded the handing over of possession of the suit premises to the decree-holder. Although the execution proceedings were shown as withdrawn on the premise that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the applicant contends that no such settlement had in fact taken place and that the possession was delivered keeping all legal rights open. When the Second Appeal came to be placed before this Court, it was held to be not maintainable. However, the Court was pleased to grant liberty to the applicant to prefer an appropriate Civil Revision Application against the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the present petition.

4. I have heard learned Advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi, appearing for the appellant–original tenant, and learned Advocate Mr. Dhruvik Patel, appearing for the opponent–landlord.

5. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, learned Advocate Ms. Joshi has vehemently contended that the rent note was executed for a fixed period of eleven months, and upon the expiry of the said term, the tenancy ipso facto stood terminated. It was, therefore, urged that the learned Courts below committed a manifest error in entertaining the HRP Suit under the provisions of the Rent Act. It was further submitted that the Courts below erred in decreeing eviction by erroneously proceeding on the premise that the revisionist continued to be the tenant of the demised premises.

6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Patel for the opponent– landlord submitted that the execution proceedings were initiated to enforce the judgment and decree passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.243 of 2007, vide Execution Petition No.20 of 2001. It was pointed out that the possession of the shop, being the demised premises, was duly taken over in execution of the said decree, a