Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J.
Bharatbhai Venilal Shah & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Raghubhai Rambhai Patel – Respondent
R/Civil Revision Application No. 196 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026
Key Points: - The onus to prove non-use rests on the plaintiff and requires showing absence of use without reasonable cause for six months prior to the suit (!) . - The High Court will not re-appreciate evidence under Section 29(2) unless the findings are perverse or there is an apparent legal error; concurrent findings are generally affirmed (!) . - The court held that non-use can be established even if electricity bills or other typical indicators are not produced, when the landlord’s evidence of non-use remains uncontroverted (!) . - The suit was decreed on the basis of non-use under Section 13(1)(k), and the appellate court affirmed this finding, leading to dismissal of the revision (!) (!) . - The notice and plaints regarding non-use, sub-letting, and bonafide personal need were pivotal to the decision; the defendant’s evidence did not sufficiently rebut non-use (!) (!) (!) . - Section 13(1)(k) requires six months’ continuous non-use immediately preceding the suit; the Court emphasizes this temporal focus in its analysis (!) (!) . - The decision cites prior caselaw (e.g., Shah Ochhavlal Motilal) but distinguishes it based on facts such as landlord’s knowledge and cross-examination, limiting applicability here (!) . - The High Court dismisses the revision for lack of merit, upholding the trial and appellate courts’ conclusions on non-use (!) . - The scope of Section 29(2) is limited to cases where the decision was perverse or contrary to evidence; it does not permit full re-evaluation of factual findings (!) (!) . - The plaintiff sought possession on multiple grounds (non-use, sub-letting, personal need, arrears); the non-use ground was the decisive factor in the decision (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the applicants-appellants-original defendants assailing the judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 2020.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.A. Mehd with learned advocate Mr. Meet A. Shah for the applicants.
3. Parties are referred to as per their original position in the suit. Applicants are the original defendants and respondent is the original plaintiff in the suit proceedings.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1. Plaintiff-respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of the suit property situated at Municipal Ward No.6, Old House No.204 (New house No.75), Navsari on the ground of sub- letting, non-user, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit property as well as on the ground of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the suit property was let out in the year 1985 for the purpose of Kirana and general stores. The rent was agreed at Rs.500/- per month. Municipal taxes, electric burning charges were to be borne by the tenants. The tenants were not supposed to transfer or sub-let the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that the suit property has been remained in non-used condition for a period of more than 5 years preceding the date of the suit. It is also alleged by plaintiff that defendants have sub-let the suit property to any third party who is storing food-grains in the suit property under the supervision of a third person. Plaintiff sought possession of the suit property on the ground that the plaintiff and his son want to start departmental store in the suit property and for that reason, requires the suit property for personal and bonafide requirement. Defendants appeared in the suit and contested the suit by filing Written Statement at Exhibit-12. Defendants denied the allegations of plaintiff and contended that the suit property was rented out to Venilal Jekchand Shah i.e. the father of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and husband of defendant No.3 at a monthly rent of Rs.401/-. Upon death of Venilal Jekchand Shah on 13.03.1981, defendants are doing business in the suit property as tenants and the purpose of letting was to carry on business activities. Defendants further denied the need of plaintiff and his son for having a departmental store in the suit property and also denied the allegation of sub-letting and non-use by defendants.
4.2. Plaintiff examined himself at Exhibit-18. Plaintiff examined his son Bhadresh Raghubhai Patel at Exhibit-52 and also examined the officer of Navsari Nagarpalika at Exhibit-64 as well as the officer of the District Supply Officer at Exhibit- 70. Plaintiff produced documentary evidence in support of his case. Defendant No.2 examined himself at Exhibit-90 and produced rent receipts of previous years as well as copy of registered licence in the name of defendant No.1. Learned trial Court framed following issues at Exhibit-15.
“(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the monthly rent of the suit premises is Rs.500/-?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the premises let for a continue period of six month immediately the day of suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants without or have subletted the suit premises to any one against the terms and condition of the agreement therefore he is entitled to get the possession u/s.13(1)(f) of the Act?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is required for reasonable and bonafide requirements of the plaintiff himself & his family members?
(5) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are in arrears of rent for more than six months?
(6) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has issued the notice to the defendant as per the
The plaintiff in a tenancy dispute must prove non-use of the property for over six months to recover possession; the defendants failed to meet this burden, affirming the plaintiff's claims.
The court affirmed that unauthorized subletting and change of user from residential to commercial were established, with the burden of proof resting on the tenant's family to demonstrate the nature o....
A tenant's unauthorized use of premises and subletting without landlord consent constitutes a breach of tenancy, justifying eviction.
A tenant's change of user from commercial to residential use constitutes a breach of tenancy terms under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, independent of any proof of damage to the prem....
Tenancy subsists post-building demolition under rent laws as demise includes land; bona fide eviction need assessed at suit filing survives unless subsequent events completely eclipse it; non-user pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds of willful default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation, and reasonable and bona-fide need of the p....
The acceptance of rent after lease termination does not create a new tenancy; the tenant's status becomes that of a trespasser, not a statutory tenant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
