IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No No =====================================================

PUNABEN ALIAS JINABA DILIPSINH & ANR.

Versus DILIPKUMAR AMRUTLAL SONI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR BRIJESH K RAMANUJ(9898) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 =====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 02/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The revision under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Surendranagar, whereby the Regular Civil Appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2002 dated 22.07.2017, whereby the revisionists are directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the rented premises.

2. The background of the case is as under:-

2.1 The plaintiffs are the landlord/owner of the residential property situated near the Vadipara Chowk, opposite Taluka School, Surendranagar, particulars of which are described in para 2 and 3 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as ‘rented premises’) and the defendants of the suit were the tenants of the said rented premises. The tenants were in arrears of the said rented premises for more than 6 months and thereby, a statutory notice under Section 12(2) of “the Rent Act” was served upon them on 13.07.2001 and the tenancy was terminated with effect from 13.08.2001. The arrears of rent were not paid within one month from the receipt of the notice. No defence of standard rent was raised within that one month of service of notice. Therefore, the landlord had filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2002 against the defendants for recovery of vacant, peaceful and actual possession of the suit premises i.e. rented premises, and arrears of rent of 55 months i.e. Rs.715/- at the monthly rate of Rs.13/- per month of rent as mesne profit with the said amount. 2.2 In chequered history, it could be noticed that Lilaben Jambha was the original tenant and was ancestor of the revisionists, she had been joined as a defendant - tenant in the suit proceedings and at the relevant point of time, was duly served with the summon and she also appeared through her advocate and filed the written statement, but she remained absent during the trial. The suit filed by the landlord was partly decreed on 08.12.2006 and the tenants were directed to handover the vacant, peaceful and actual possession of the suit premises i.e. rented premises. The landlord with a further order of paying arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13/- per month from 19.02.1999 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 18.02.2002 and thereafter to continue to pay Rs.13/- per month as a damage to the plaintiffs (mesne profit to the plaintiffs) for use and occupation of the suit premises till the possession of the suit premises is handed over.

2.3 The Regular Civil Appeal bearing No.1 of 2016 was preferred. The 2^nd Additional District Judge, Surendranagar found that the decree was passed in absence of the tenant, the original tenant - Lilaben Jambha was expired during pendency of the Civil Suit was not within the knowledge of the heirs of Lilaben Jambha. However, they came to know about it for the first time when the execution proceedings was commenced. In wake of this premise, the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar, without discussing any other merit of the case, allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh hearing.

2.4 Pursuant to t