Reserved On : 02/12/2025 Pronounced On : 19/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

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

BHAURIKBHAI UTTAMBHAI GHIWALA & ORS.

Versus KOKILABEN W/O NADUBHAI @ NANDUBHAI HARIBHAI SURATI & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR MJ PARIKH(577) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 DELETED for the Opponent(s) No. 2 MR MAULIK R SHAH(6385) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 =====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. This revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”) challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2023 passed by the appellate Bench No.1 of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Appeal No. 20 of 2018, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist, in turn confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court No.2, Ahmedabad in H.R.P.Suit No.229 of 2015 dated 15.12.2017.

2. Revisionist is the landlord. Defendants are tenants and sub-tenant. For convenience and brevity, they are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Case backgrounds as under:-

3.1 Landlord filed the Civil Suit under the provisions of the “Rent Act” against the tenant and sub-tenant on the averment that, as a suit shop admeasuring 12’x10’, whereby the business in the name and style of “Naman Chasmaghar” is carrying on, is situated in the house, popularly known as ‘Ramkrupa’ in Kankaria area, Prankunj Society, having T.P. Scheme No.4 and bearing Survey No.32-C-1 of Rajpur-Hirpur in Kankaria area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit shop’.), which initially belonged to the ancestor of the landlord, namely Shakrabhai Harjivandas Bhavsar. It was rented to Chimanlal Ambalal Patel in the year 1981. The rent note was executed at the relevant time. Subsequently, another rent note was executed in the year 1989, whereby Chimanlal Ambalal Patel and two other persons, namely Nandubhai Haribhai Surti and Pravinbhai Varvabhai Prajapati were inducted as tenant and in that way, all three persons became tenants.

3.2 Later on, another agreement was executed, whereby Chimanlal Ambalal Patel has relinquished his tenancy rights with consent of the landlord in favor of two other tenants, namely Nandubhai Haribhai Surti and Pravinbhai Varvabhai Prajapati.

3.3 The rent of the suit shop was Rs.300/- per month as it was agreed in 1981. Later on, the rent amount was increased to Rs.500/- per month. One of the tenant - Mr. Nandubhai Haribhai Surti was expired 6 to 7 years prior to the filing of the suit, leaving behind his wife. Thereafter, Mr. Pravinbhai Varvabhai Prajapati was paying the rent of the suit shop and the last rent of Rs.500/- was paid by him on 25.02.2011 through cheque. Mr. Pravinbhai Prajapati had expired two years prior to filing of the suit.

3.4 The wife of tenant Nandubhai Haribhai Surti had continued tenancy of the suit shop after the death of Nandubhai Haribhai Surti. According to the plaint, one Mr. Manojkumar Ambalal Patel has been given the exclusive possession of the suit shop and he was inducted as a sub-tenant in the suit shop. Thereby, the tenants have breached the terms and conditions of the tenancy. In the above averments, the landlord preferred a suit for peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop from the tenant and sub-tenant. Permitting both the parties to lead the evidence, the learned trial Court, after framing the issues at Exhibit-52, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff relying upon the deposition of the plaintiff.

3.5 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree arrived at by the learned trial Court, the landlord