The Small Cause Court has jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 to order possession recovery upon determination of tenancy, confirming compliance with statutory and procedural requirements.

ORDER :

J.C.DOSHI, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Application, preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the learned Small Cause Court No. 2 at Ahmedabad in P.S.R.P. No. 18 of 2018, whereby the petition instituted under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1882”] came to be allowed, and the present revisionist was directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises.

2. In order to effectively examine the merits of the controversy and to adjudicate upon the issues arising in the present proceedings, it becomes necessary to advert to the relevant factual milieu giving rise to the lis.

2.1. The present revision application arises from proceedings initiated by the respondent herein by way of P.S.R.P. No. 18 of 2018 under Section 41 of the Act of 1882, before the learned Small Cause Court No. 2 at Ahmedabad. By judgment and order dated 30.12.2025, the learned Court allowed the said application and, in exercise of powers under Section 43 of the Act of 1882, directed issuance of a possession warrant against the present applicants. The bailiff of the Court was accordingly ordered to execute the warrant and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, as described in paragraph 1 of the application, to the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.

2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicants have preferred the present revision application, inter alia, contending that the proceedings under Section 41 were not maintainable in the factual milieu of the case. It is their case that the learned Small Cause Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, while the respondent had allegedly not produced cogent material to substantiate the assertions made in the plaint. A further grievance is that, after conclusion of written arguments, the learned Court amended the issues, thereby causing serious prejudice to the applicants and vitiating the proceedings. On these and other grounds urged in the revision application and at the time of hearing, the applicants seek quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment and consequential possession warrant.

3. Learned Advocate for the Revisionists submits that the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2025 is vitiated by non-appreciation of evidence. The respondent alleged that the premises were let out on 29.08.2002, yet no documentary proof was produced. In cross- examination, Respondent No.1 admitted he had no document showing the date of letting and was unaware of the exact date. The finding of tenancy, therefore, rests on no legal evidence.

3.1. The Trial Court wrongly relied upon the rent diary (Exh. 25). The first entry begins only from 12.12.2010, which contradicts the pleaded tenancy of 2002. The diary bears no signature of the applicants or their predecessor, a fact admitted in cross-examination. Such an unproved, self-serving document could not have been relied upon.

3.2. The burden to prove tenancy lay entirely on the respondent. No evidence was led regarding terms of tenancy, duration, rent agreement, or liability for taxes and charges. The alleged admission of possession does not prove lawful tenancy. The Trial Court misdirected itself in shifting the burden onto the applicants.

4. Even assuming a landlord-tenant relationship, mandatory compliance of Section 12 of the BOMBAY RENT ACT (Gujarat Rent Act) was required before seeking eviction. No statutory notice or valid ground is shown. Alternatively, if the t