IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 232 of 2005 ==========================================================

BACHUBHAI MANGABHAI VALAND DECD THROUGH HEIRS & ORS.

Versus AROONABEN DINKARRAY RAVAL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Applicant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 MR GAURANG H BHATT(166) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4 MR PRAVIN P PANCHAL(2059) for the Opponent(s) No. 2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 04/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Present CRA u/s 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels, and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short “Rent Act”) at the instance of the petitioners tenant challenges the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2005 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and 2^nd Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2003, whereby the learned appellate Court, by allowing the Regular Civil Appeal, reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Dhrangadhra in Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 1995 and directed the tenant to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of one room situated at sheri of Harjivan Parekh with veranda (in short “the suit property”) to the respondent No.1 – landlady and further directed to pay mesne profit of Rs.50/- per month till the landlady gets vacant and peaceful possession.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as landlady and tenant.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The plaintiff was a landlady and defendant was a tenant. The suit property is rented to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs.50/-, whereby the monthly tenancy starts from first day and ended with last day of every English calendar month. The landlady averred that the tenant was not regular in paying the rent, and therefore was in arrears of rent for more than six months commencing from 1^st August 1988. Thus, the statutory notice was issued on 5^th September 1994 claiming arrears of rent, and also terminating tenancy. According to the landlady, the rent was in arrears for more than 72 months, which comes to Rs.3600/- at the rate of Rs.50/- per month. The landlady has filed previous suit No.133 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant. However, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The landlady, upon sole ground of arrears of rent, filed a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act, before the learned trial Court.

3.2 The tenant having been served appeared and filed written statement and raised contention that Rs.50/- being a contractual rent is not a standard rent, beside raising same contention in reply to statutory notice.

3.3 Further contended that it is incorrect to say that the tenancy starts from first day of English calendar month and ends on last date, but it starts from 18th of English calendar month and ends on 17th of next month and Rs.15/- is the standard rent. The statutory notice is invalid, as the rent is not in arrears from 1st August 1988. The tenant is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increase. The plaintiff is not landlady. The landlady claimed possession of the rented premises on the basis that by a will of deceased Mohanbhai Manishankar Jani, she became landlady, but in absence of other class 1 heirs of Mohanbhai Jani. Plaintiff, as a landlady, cannot claim possession of the suit property. The landlady's suit is barred by principle of res judicata, as earlier suit for the same relief was dismissed for non-prosecution and the rent paid by the tenant is withdrawn by the landlady.

3.4 The learned trial court on the belief and reason that the tenant has deposited Rs.8800/- towards outstanding rent before the suit is decided finally implies that the tenant was ready and willing to pay standard rent, dismissed the landlady's suit on the ground that tenant is in arrears of rent.

3.5 Being aggriev