IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

BHAGVATIBEN RAJNIKANT PANCHAL Versus KANTIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR DADHICHI L LIMBOLA(10936) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR JAY H PATEL(11511) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 03/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Jay H Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the defendant.

2. This First Appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 505 of 2010, whereby the learned Trial Court was pleased to direct the present appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent and to pay a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards arrears of rent, along with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of possession. The present appellant was the original defendant, and the respondent was the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity. The plaintiff is the owner of Flat No. 9, bearing Municipal Tenement No. 0230-32-3006- 001-V known as Narnaryan Avenue, situated at District Sub-district Ahmedabad, Naroda T.P. Scheme No.1, Final Plot Nos. 714715, Survey No.33, registered under Shree Dhanshyam Owners Association, a non-trading corporation registered on 04.08.1997, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the “suit premises”.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant initially intended to purchase the suit premises but, being unable to arrange the sale consideration, was permitted to occupy the suit premises as a monthly tenant with effect from 23.06.2005 on payment of rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from the rent, the defendant had agreed to bear the expenses towards municipal taxes, education cess, electricity charges etc. It is further alleged that the defendant became irregular in payment of rent, resulting in arrears amounting to Rs.1,32,000/-, calculated for a period of 44 months commencing from 30.04.2006 till 01.12.2009. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to clear the arrears and merely gave false assurances. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 29.01.2010, calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit premises and to pay arrears along with mesne profits. As the defendant failed to comply with the said notice, the plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 505 of 2010 on 09.03.2010, seeking possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement at Exh.12, contending that the suit premises had been purchased by the defendant under an oral agreement for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, payable within four years, after which a sale deed was to be executed. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff in a piecemeal manner, and an additional amount of Rs.32,000/- was paid by cheque. Further, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the plaintiff under the name of Shri Nitin Sevak, a friend of the plaintiff’s husband. Thereafter, the defendant issued four cheques of Rs.3,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff. With regard to the remaining balance amount of Rs.18,000/-, it is submitted that although the defendant was ready and willing to pay the same, the plaintiff deliberately refu