SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER, J.
Jaykumar Prabhudas Bajaj - Appellant
Versus
The Motilal Hirabhai Estate and Warehouse Ltd - Respondent
R/First Appeal No. 403 of 2026 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J.F. Mehta.

A notice of termination of lease is valid if it substantially communicates the intent to vacate, regardless of minor technical omissions. Once a lease is legally terminated, established defaults in contractual financial obligations justify an eviction decree.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Suit for possession - Eviction of lessee.

(B) Notice requirements - A notice to quit does not constitute the cause of action but is a condition precedent to the institution of an eviction suit - The object of such notice is to communicate the intention of the lessor to terminate the lease and provide a statutory period to vacate - The notice should not be construed in a hyper-technical manner if the substance of the communication effectively conveys the intent to terminate the tenancy. (Paras 10, 13)

(C) Eviction for default - Where a lessee admits to the breach of contractual obligations, including the non-payment of property taxes as stipulated in the agreement, the court is justified in passing a decree of eviction upon the valid determination of the lease. (Paras 7, 14)

Facts of the case:
The lessor filed a suit for possession, declaration, and mesne profits following the lessee's failure to vacate the premises after a notice of termination. The notice cited unauthorized subletting and non-payment of rent and taxes as grounds for termination. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that while the subletting allegation was not fully substantiated, the default in tax payments provided sufficient grounds for eviction. The lessee appealed, contending that the termination notice failed to specifically highlight tax arrears and that the trial court erred in granting eviction without allowing an opportunity to rectify such defaults.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the notice was sufficient to communicate the intent to terminate the lease. Given that the default in tax payments remained an admitted fact, the court found no infirmity in the trial court's decision to decree the suit for possession.

Issues: The main issues were whether the eviction decree was sustainable when the notice to quit emphasized subletting, and whether the lessee was entitled to a period for rectifying tax defaults before an eviction could be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice to quit is not to be interpreted with pedantic rigor; if it effectively satisfies the legal requirement of communicating the intention to end the lease, it is valid. Once the lease is terminated, persistent failure to discharge financial obligations under the contract justifies the grant of an eviction decree.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.580 of 2016 dated 25.07.2025, whereby the learned Court has decreed the suit filed by the present respondent for possession, declaration and mesne profit.

Factual Matrix:

2. The case of the appellant before the learned trial Court is that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, and one Uttaraben Shah is its Managing Director. The plaintiff owns various properties situated in Ginning Ward No.14, comprising offices and shops collectively known as “Taliya Mill Compound.” The dispute pertains to Godown No.38 bearing Municipal Cess No.222 and Survey No.211/2/25, wherein the defendant (original defendant) is a tenant. The said premises was let out on 01.05.2005 for the purpose of cloth business and pressing work, at a monthly rent of Rs.2,989/- along with liability towards municipal taxes, electricity charges, education tax and other statutory levies. The defendant paid rent up to 31.03.2015 but defaulted thereafter from 01.04.2015 onwards. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, without obtaining prior permission, sublet the suit premises to one Padhmavati Tassofi. On account of the aforesaid breach of the terms of tenancy, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 19.10.2015. As certain documents were not referred therein, a fresh notice dated 03.12.2015 came to be issued determining the tenancy with effect from 31.12.2015 and calling upon the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. As the defendant failed to comply with the said notices, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month, along with declaration and possession. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement at Exhibit 17, inter alia contending that the ownership of the property by the plaintiff is required to be proved and denying liability towards rent and payment of taxes. The plaintiff thereafter filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 19 reiterating the averments made in the plaint.

2.1 Learned trial Court after completion of the pleadings has framed following issues and answered accordingly:

Issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is tenant of premises known as old godown no.38 bearing Municipal Tenament No.0137-49-0061-0222-H from 01-05-2005?

Answer is Affirmative

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has executed Agreement on 01-05-2005 and subsequently on 01-08-2010? (OPP)

Answer is Affirmative

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has committed breach of Agreement and handed over possession of Padmavati Tesofi?(OPP)

Answer is Partly Affirmative

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rent Rs.2989/- from 01-04-2015 to 29-2-20167(OPP)

Answer is Affirmative

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to meanse-profit @ Rs.25000/- p.m. from date of suit till recovery of possession?(OPP)

Answer is Partly Affirmative

(6) Whether the plaintiff's notice is legal and valid? (OPP)

Answer is Affirmative

(7) What relief and decree? (OPP)

As per final order.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined himself at Exhibit 36 and produced documentary evidence, including documents relating to change of name intimated to the ROC (Exh.28), authority in favour of Uttaraben Shah, Managing Director (Exh.29), authorization dated 01.04.2022 (Exh.13), rent agreement dated 01.08.2010 for a period of 11 months and 29 days (Exh.31), rent receipts (Exh.32), and payment of rent by the defendant on 23.11.2016 for the period from April 2015 to February 2016 (Exh.33). The plaintiff also produced tax bills issued by the Corporation for different periods (Exhs.34, 52, 59), the original rent agreement dated 01.05.2005 (Exh.49), rent payment for the period April 2014 to March 2015 (Exh.51), notices dated 19.10.2015 and 03.12.2015 (Exhs.53 and 56), and the jantri (Exh.60).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top