A tenant’s inability to prove tenancy rights results in dismissal of claims for possession.

1. Rule. Mr.J.K.Parmar, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

2. The challenge in this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 21.03.2014, passed by the District Court, Nadiad (“the Appellate Court), in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.108 of 2013, whereby, the order dated 26.07.2013, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Thasra (“the Trial Court), rejecting the application at Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.4 of 2011, has been confirmed.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of the property bearing No.1882 of Pali Gram Panchayat, Sevaliya, Taluka: Thasra. According to the petitioner, the said property was leased out to him by an oral agreement in the year 2005 by the predecessorintitle of the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.750 / . The petitioner had also given an amount of Rs.1,11,111 / as deposit for the said property. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the suit property and has been paying rent regularly, upto 31.03.2011. The petitioner is carrying on the business of making gold and silver ornaments in the said property in the name and style of “Bhagyoday Jewellers” and has a small furnace for melting gold and silver. There is also a glass showcase in the property from where the petitioner used to carry on the business of selling gold and silver ornaments. It is further the case of the petitioner that he has also printed stationery which shows that he is running a jewellery shop in the said premises. However, the respondents are giving threats to the petitioner to vacate the said property and are creating an hindrance to his carrying on business from there. As the respondents are clever people, they have persuaded the petitioner to part with the recent electricity bills for the said property on the pretext of they being required for the purpose of obtaining a Passport. Therefore, the said electricity bills are not available with the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, having instituted the abovementioned suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. As, according to him, the respondents are forcibly hampering him from carrying on the business from the suit premises and are threatening to throw out his belongings therefrom, the petitioner has instituted the abovementioned suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application at Ex.5, seeking a temporary injunction against the respondents.

4. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner is not, and never has been, their tenant. The petitioner was a tenant of one Shah Pravinchandra, having taken Shop No.1562, belonging to the latter, on rent. He remained the tenant of Shri Pravinchandra from 10.02.2005 to 06.02.2010. Thereafter, the landlord asked the petitioner to vacate the shop. The shop in which the petitioner was carrying the business of making gold and silver ornaments was opposite the cloth shop being run by the respondents. Being neighbours, there were good relations between the petitioner and the respondents. When the petitioner was asked to vacate the shop by his landlord, he had nowhere to go and was also lacking in finances. The petitioner was not keeping good health, therefore, upon his asking the respondents, they permitted the petitioner to use Shop No.1883 (old No.1856) belonging to them temporarily, for a period of two or three months, until the petitioner was able to make alternativ