JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. This Revision Application filed under Section 29 of the Gujarat Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘the Rent Act’, for short) challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2025 drawn by the Appellate Bench No.2 of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad (‘the Appellate Court’, for short) in Civil Appeal No.54 of 2014 whereby the Civil Appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. Small Cause Court No.7, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No.832 of 2009 was set aside and the tenant was directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demise premises to the appellant within a period of two months.

2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff - landlord and the defendant is tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status as that of before the trial Court.

3. The facts, in brief, are as under:

3.1 The commercial property bearing Municipal Census No.328/7, Sub-Plot No.98-20 Final Plot No.330, Survey No.298, Ambica Industrial Estate, Opp. Dariakhan Ghummat, Ahmedabad (‘the demise premises’, for short) belongs to and owned by landlord, had been rented to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs.300/- plus municipal taxes and other taxes, electricity charges for the use of commercial purpose since 01.04.1972 by executing a rent-note.

3.2 According to the landlord, as per the terms and conditions agreed by and between the parties, of the rent- note, tenant was prevented rather restricted to use the demise premises only for commercial purpose. He was further restrained to transfer, assign or sublet the demise premises in any manner. The tenant was further restricted to use adjacent land for their ingress and egress between 10:00 p.m. to 05:00 a.m. as the said land holds right of way connected to other immovable property belonging to the plaintiff for personal use. It was agreed between landlord and tenant that entrance gate situated on western side of the demise premises will not be used by the tenant and would be kept close throughout.

The tenant was further restricted to use the margin open land and further restrained to erect any permanent structure on the demise premises without written permission of the landlord. It is, in these background, landlord put a case that tenant has not only made encroachment on open land which is existed in margin but also constructed permanent structure and violated terms and conditions of the rent note; also damaged property not rented to the defendant - tenant. It is also contended in the plaint that tenant had constructed shade in open margin land which the tenant was permitted for ingress and egress, which is of permanent in nature and thereby encroached upon the open land and breached the terms and conditions of the rent note.

3.3 With the background of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff had instituted HRP Suit No.832 of 2009 seeking eviction of the tenant from the demise premises.

3.4 The said suit was seriously contested by the defendant – tenant raising multiple contentions having denied all allegations levelled against him and further contended that for superficial reasons, since landlord intended to remove tenant from demise premises, has filed the false suit. However, during the recording of the statement, tenant accepted the execution of the rent-note and further contended that he has deposited arrears of rent.

3.5 The learned trial Court, on the basis of the rival pleadings, was pleased to frame the issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence and ultimately, after analysing the evidence, dismissed the suit on the ground that though the landlord has successfully proved that defendant encroached upon land other than rented land, it may not be treated breach of conditions of the rent note or tenancy. On the contrary, conduct of the tenant would rather personal obligation of the tenant and cannot be said to be breach of tenancy which could fall under