IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 309 of 2016 ==========================================================

DILIP JAISUKHLAL MARJADI & ANR.

Versus DECD. SHANTILAL JIVANJI RANA THROUGH HEIRS- DAHIBEN SHANTILAL RANA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 DECEASED LITIGANT for the Opponent(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Opponent(s) No. 3 MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,4,5,6,7,8,9 PRIYAL M PARIKH(7593) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,4,5,6,7,8,9 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 10/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Present Revision under section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘Rent Act’) is filed by original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No.223 of

1985.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to as their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. Deceased – Shantilal Jivanji Rana was tenant of House bearing City Survey No.1118, Municipal House No.4/441 (for short demise premises) at monthly rent of Rs.6 per month. Plaintiffs were landlord and filed Regular Civil Suit No.233 of 1995 under the Rent Act seeking peaceful and vacant possession of demise premises raising multiple grounds available under the provisions of Rent Act. During the pendency of suit proceedings, tenant – Shantilal Rana expired living behind his heirs including his widow – Dahiben Rana. All the legal heirs of deceased Shantilal Rana were joined as party defendants. The plaintiff also prayed for relief under section 13(1)(l) and section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act pleading that legal heirs of deceased – Shantilal Rana had acquired alternate and suitable accommodation.

4. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit against all the defendants except defendant no.1/1 – Dahiben and also directed all the defendants to pay arrears of rent. Learned Trial Court passed conditional decree that till defendant no.1/1 – Dahiben lives in the demise premises, landlord would not be entitled to get vacant and peaceful possession of demise premises.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, Regular Civil Appeal No.26 of 1997 was filed which was later on renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.225 of 2002. This appeal was filed under the provisions of Rent Act. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and confirmed the judgment and decree that till deceased – Dahiben lives in the demise premises, landlord has no right to seek eviction. However, in operative part of the judgment and decree delivered by learned Appellate Court (see para 14), it is held that judgment and decree passed against rest of the defendants would include defendant no.1/9. In the aforesaid premises.

6. In the aforesaid premises, present Revision Application is filed under section 29 of the Rent Act.

7. Solitary argument canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Pandya for the appellant herein that during pendency of Revision Application, deceased – Dahiben has expired on 15.04.2021. He has placed on record copy of the death certificate. It is submitted that since Dahiben expired during pendency of Revision Application, now decree becomes enforceable and therefore, to that extent necessary modification is to be made in the concurrent findings arrived by learned Trial Court. He referred to judgment in the case of Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka v/s. Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala [Civil Revision Application No.610 of 2018], more particularly, para 17 thereof, which reads as under :-

“(17) The conspectus of the aforenoted observations of this Court and the Apex Court will propose that the requirement of Section 13 (1)(1) of the Rent Act is that, the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, after coming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allo