Gujarat High Court
Bhatia Kishankumar Trikamdas Chachra ... vs Hitenbhai Chandravadanbhai Patel on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 357 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 357 of 2024
==========================================================
BHATIA KISHANKUMAR TRIKAMDAS CHACHRA LH OF DECD
TRIKAMDAS D BHATIA
Versus
HITENBHAI CHANDRAVADANBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEET D PANSURIA(10170) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, inter alia, seeking to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2022, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 2021.
BRIEF FACTS:-
2. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 143 of 2011 asserting that he is the Rent Controller of the property known as "Ashoka Sadan", situated near Town Hall, Jamnagar, and is, therefore, entitled to be described as the landlord thereof under the provision of the Act. It was averred that one block consisting of a room and ausari situated on the first floor, left side of the staircase, was let out to late Trikamdas Bhatia on a monthly rent of Rs.15/-. Upon the demise of the original tenant, his wife continued to occupy Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined the premises, and rent was paid up to 31.12.2004. The plaintiff's case further was that the defendant was not residing in the suit premises at the time of death of widow of the tenant or three months prior to death of widow of the tenant and, consequently, the tenancy rights did not devolve upon him, rendering his occupation unauthorized and entitling the plaintiff to seek eviction.
2.1. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that he has been residing in the suit premises since birth and continued to reside therein even after the demise of his parents. It was asserted that while his married sons are residing separately with their respective families elsewhere, the defendant and his wife have been continuously residing in the suit premises for several years, and thus, the tenancy lawfully devolved upon him. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021. The appeal preferred by the defendant being Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2022 came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jamnagar, vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has preferred the present revision application under Section 29(2) of the Act.
3. Heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused the relevant records.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVISIONIST:-
4. Learned advocate appearing for the revisionist, at the threshold, contended that Mr. Hitenbhai Patel, the plaintiff in the suit before the learned Trial Court, had miserably and hopelessly failed to establish that he was either the Administrator or the Rent Collector of the property known as Ashoka Sadan, or that he Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined possessed the requisite authority and locus standi to institute the suit under Section 13 of the Act seeking eviction of the defendant from the tenanted premises and recovery of possession thereof from the son of late Trikamdas Bhatia. It was further urged that this contention was specifically canvassed during the course of trial; however, the learned Trial Court failed to advert to the said issue in its proper perspective, and thereby committed a manifest error in decreeing the suit in favour of a person who had not proved his status as landlord or Rent Collector.
4.1. It was next submitted that the Court below has materially erred in its interpretation and application of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act. Mr. Kishankumar Trikamdas Chachra Bhatia, being the son of the original tenant late Trikamdas Bhatia, squarely falls within the definition of "family", being a Class-I heir. Consequently, upon the demise of the original tenant, the tenancy devolved upon Mr. Kishankumar Trikamdas Chachra Bhatia, the defendant herein, as a matter of law.
4.2. It was further submitted that the learned Court below ought not to have passed an order of eviction while misconstruing and misapplying the mandate of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act, the said provision having been interpreted dehors its true scope and legislative intent.
4.3. It was next contended that the documentary evidence adduced by the present revisionist, more particularly Exhibits 63, 64, 72, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, and 95 to 98, unequivocally establishes that the revisionist continued to remain in possession of the tenanted premises even after the demise of her mother. It was urged that the Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined said documents, having been duly proved in accordance with law and not having been controverted or challenged by the plaintiff, carry substantial evidentiary weight in favour of the revisionist. However, the learned Court below has failed to properly construe, appreciate, and evaluate the said material evidence, thereby committing a grave and patent jurisdictional error.
4.4. It was further submitted that the LPG gas connection stood in the name of the revisionist, reflecting the address of the tenanted premises up to the year 2013. This circumstance, it was argued, unmistakably demonstrates that even after the demise of the tenant, Lilaben, in the year 2006, the revisionist continued to remain in occupation of the premises till at least the year 2013, i.e., nearly two years subsequent to the institution of the suit. Such continued possession, it was contended, sufficiently establishes that at the time of the death of the original tenant, the revisionist was residing with her and, by operation of law, inherited the tenancy rights.
4.5. In fine, it is submitted to allow the present Second Revision Application.
SUBMISSION OF THE OPPONENT:-
5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent stoutly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist and contended that the impugned judgment and decree do not suffer from any legal infirmity, much less a jurisdictional error, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Civil Revision Application. It was urged that the plaintiff had duly established his locus standi and authority to institute the suit under Section 13 of the Act, and that the issue regarding his status as Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined landlord or Rent Collector was meticulously examined and adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are pure findings of fact, arrived at after due and proper appreciation of the evidentiary material, and are neither perverse nor vitiated by any non- consideration of material evidence so as to invite interference in revision.
5.1. Learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that the plea sought to be canvassed under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act is wholly misconceived and founded upon an erroneous construction of the statutory provision. It was contended that mere relationship or lineage does not ipso facto result in devolution of tenancy rights unless the mandatory statutory requirements, including proof of residence with the deceased tenant at the relevant time, are strictly satisfied. According to the respondent, the documents relied upon by the revisionist are wholly inadequate to establish continuous residence or lawful succession to the tenancy, and, in any case, such issues partake the character of mixed questions of law and fact which have already been duly examined and conclusively answered by the Court below. Ergo, it was submitted that the present Civil Revision Application does not disclose any jurisdictional error or perversity and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT:-
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both sides and upon a careful conspectus of the rival submissions, the seminal Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined issue which falls for determination is whether the revisionist can be said to have lawfully succeeded to and continued the tenancy originally created in favour of his father. The resolution of this controversy hinges upon the true import, scope, and application of Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act, which constitutes the governing statutory provision in this regard and reads thus:-
"tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises and includes-
(a) such sub-tenants and other persons as have derived title under a tenant [before the commencement of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959];
[(aa) any person to whom interest in premises has been transferred under the proviso to [sub-section (1) of ]section 15;]
(b) any person remaining after the determination of the lease, in possession, with or without the assent of the landlord, of the premises leased to such person or his predeccessor who has derived title [before the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance. 1959;] [(c) (i) in relation to any premises let for residence, when the tenant dies, whether the death has occurred before or after the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Mah. XXII of 1978), any member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court, and
(ii) in relation to any premises let for the purposes of education, business, trade or storage, when the tenant dies, whether the death has occurred before or after the commencement of the said Act, any member of the tenant's Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined family using the premises for the purposes of education or carrying on business, trade or storage in the premises, with the tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court;] 6.1. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision makes it pellucid that the expression "tenant" is not confined to the original contractual tenant alone, but extends to and includes any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for the premises. In the context of premises let for residential purposes, the statutory definition further takes within its sweep any member of the tenant's family who was residing with the tenant at the time of his death, or within three months immediately preceding such demise would get transmission of tenancy. Ergo, the legislative intent is manifest that continuity of tenancy, upon the death of the original tenant, is statutorily preserved in favour of such qualifying family member, subject to fulfilment of the conditions engrafted in the provision.
6.2. In the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed position that the original tenant expired in the year 1971. Upon his demise, the tenancy stood statutorily transmitted under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act in favour of his widow, Lilaben, she being a qualifying member of the tenant's family who was residing with him at the time of his death. Significantly, no member of the tenant's family ever raised any demur or contestation with regard to the transmission of the tenancy in favour of the widow, Lilaben, upon the death of the tenant in the year 1971, inasmuch as she was admittedly residing with her husband during his lifetime.
6.3. It is trite that more than one person may be recognised as a Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined tenant, either by virtue of an agreement inter se amongst the qualifying members of the tenant's family or by a determination of the Court, which may, in an appropriate case, appoint more than one family member as a tenant. However, in the factual matrix of the present case, no such inter se dispute ever arose amongst the heirs of the deceased tenant. The transmission of tenancy in favour of Lilaben remained unchallenged and attained finality. It is only upon the unfortunate demise of Lilaben in the year 2006 that the present controversy has surfaced, namely, whether the tenancy so vested in her would thereafter stand further transmitted in favour of the present revisionist.
6.4. The revisionist asserts that he was residing with his mother, Lilaben, during her lifetime and that he continued to occupy and reside in the tenanted premises even after her demise. In substantiation of this plea, the revisionist placed reliance upon several documentary evidence.
7. The learned Trial Court, however, while negativing the aforesaid contention, meticulously adverted to and relied upon Exhibits 43, 62, and 88, comprising, inter alia, extracts from consumer information records, oral evidence led through the defendant's own witness, and documentary evidence in the nature of registered sale deeds. A conjoint reading and cumulative evaluation of the said evidence unmistakably establishes that the revisionist was, in fact, residing at a place other than the suit premises, either at Village Navagam or at Avantika Complex, Jamnagar, since as early as the year 1995. The said documentary evidence, being unimpeachable in nature and emanating from records attributable to the revisionist himself, effectively demolishes his claim of residence Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined in the tenanted premises at the time of his mother's death in the year 2006. In such circumstances, the revisionist cannot be permitted to resile from or deny the factual position emerging from his own documents.
7.1. Though the learned advocate for the revisionist sought to place reliance upon the LPG gas connection standing in the name of the revisionist, the extract whereof was produced at Exhibit 62, indicating the address of the tenanted premises, the said contention was duly examined and found to be devoid of merit. The deposition of the Manager of the Gas Agency conclusively established that the mere existence of an LPG connection does not ipso facto prove actual living, and in any event, the said material was insufficient to dislodge the overwhelming documentary evidence demonstrating residence elsewhere. On the contrary, the documentary evidence at Exhibit 88, being registered sale deeds executed in favour of the revisionist, unequivocally records his address as Avantika Complex, Jamnagar, thereby lending further credence to the finding that he was not residing in the tenanted premises at the relevant point of time.
8. In view of the aforesaid evidentiary milieu, the learned Trial Court was wholly justified in concluding that the revisionist had failed to establish his residence with the deceased tenant at the time of her death, a sine qua non for succession to tenancy under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act.
9. Perusal of the judgment and order rendered by the learned Appellate Court reveals that Points for Determination Nos. 3 and 4 lay at the very fulcrum of the controversy, constituting the core Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined issues requiring adjudication. These points, as formulated by the Appellate Court, encapsulate the seminal questions which decisively govern the lis between the parties and, therefore, merit focused consideration:-
"3. Whether after death of mother of defendant, tenancy right in the disputed property devolve in favour of defendant?
4. Whether defendant is liable to vacate the possession of disputed property on the ground that disputed property has not been used by the defendant for continuous period of more than six month immediately prior to the institution of suit?"
10. Findings of the learned Appellate Court as above points of determination reads as under:-
"17. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that disputed property was let out to Trikamdas Bhatiya. Death of Trikamdas Bhatiya is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after death of Trikamdaas, his wife namely Lilaben was residing in the disputed property as tenant. Death of Lilaben is also not in dispute. On the perusal of death certificate of Lilaben at Ex-92, it appears that Lialben was died on 19-08-2006. Now question for determination is that whether defendant Kishankumar was residing in the disputed property with his mother at the time of, or within three months immediately preceding, the death of his mother Lilaben on 19-08-2006. Next question for determination is that whether disputed property has not been used by the tenant for continuous period of more than six month immediately prior to the institution of impudent suit.
18. Plaintiff Hitenbhai in support his case, himself appeared in the witness box as Pw-01 and tendered his affidavit of evidence at Ex-40. Plaintiff also relied and offers the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined testimony of Pw-02 Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai at Ex-55, Pw-03 Dipeshbhai at Ex-58, Pw-04 Kiritbhai Gulabari at Ex-61 and Pw-05 Bharatbhai Narshibhai at Ex-69. Plaintiff also relied on some documentary evidence produced on the record. On the contrary, defendant Krishankumar in support of his defense himself appeared in the witness-box as Rw-01 and tendered his affidavit of evidence at Ex-77. Defendant also relied on the testimony of Rw-02 Vijaybhai Mandalbhai at Ex-103. Defendant also relied on some documentary evidence produced on the record.
19. Plaintiff in support of his case has examined Pw-02 Sanjaybhai Arjanbhai who is employee of City Mamlatdar office, Jamnagar. On the perusal of deposition of this witness and abstract of list of election roll containing the name of defendant and his son Mitesh Kishanbhai at Ex-57 produced by this witnesses, it appears that polling station of defendant and his son is at Randalnagar Navghamghed. This evidence gave the impression that defendant has been residing at Navghamghed. Had the defendant not been residing at Navghamghed then what the reason was for fixing the polling station of defendant at Navghamghed. Generally polling stations are fixed considering the residential place of voters. The abstract of list of election roll at Ex-57 containign the name of defendant and his son gave the impression that defendant Kishankumar Trikamdas has been residing at Navghanghed and not
20. Thereafter, plaintiff has also examined Pw-03 Dipeshbhai Ravibhai Vara. He is the employee of Zonal office-1, Jamnagar. He has stated that as per detail of ration card of Kishankumar Trikamdas brought by him, ration card has been registered at Navghamghed area. Ration card number is 10/011/000/912/00199/12977. Gas connection number on this ration card is 14059 at Mahabir Gas Agency. He also produced letter written by him containing the detail of ration card no. 10/011/000/912/00199/12977 at Ex-59 and copy of G register maintained at his office at Ex-60. Perusal of deposition of this witness as well as considering the documents at Ex-59 and 60, it clearly appears that ration card of defendant bearing no.10/011/000/912/00199/12977 Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined has been registered at Navghamghed area. His gas connection no.14059 is at Mahabit Gas Agency. These evidences clearly show that defendant has been residing at Navghamghed. Had the defendant not been residing at Navghamghed then what the reason was for registering the ration card of defendant and gas connection at Navghamghed. Copy of ration-card of defendant at Ex-T-43 bearing ration card no. 10/011/000/912/00199/12977 as above stated also show that defendant has been residing in Navghamghed area. These evidences show that defendant has been residing at Navghamghed area and not at Ashok Sadan.
21. Thereafter, plaintiff has also examined Pw-05 Bharatbhai Narshibhai. He is the head constable at City 'A' Division police Station. He produced copy of charge sheet in connection with offence registered against Mithun who is son of defendant vide CR no. 65 of 2009 at Ex-70, copy of panchnama at Ex-71; copy of complaint at Ex-72 and statement of Mithun son of Kishanbhai at Ex-73. In the statement at Ex-73 of Mithun Son of Kishanbhai, he has stated that he has been residing with his family at "Pushp Kushi, Room No.-3 Street no: 34, Nandan Park, Rameshwarnagar. Thus as per the statement of Mithun he has been residing at above mentioned address with his family. He further stated that he is unmarried. In this circumstance, it is natural that he has been residing with his family which consists of his parents. Moreover panchnama at Ex-71 also shows that Mithun and two other accused persons were found in the disputed property with illegal CD. Had the defendant was residing in the disputed property, then how this type of illegal activity was being carried out in the disputed property and this fact clearly shows that defendant has not been residing in the disputed property.
22. Plaintiff has also produced certified copy of sale deed no. 7464 of 1995 at Ex-45. Perusal of this document shows that one flat at Avantika complex situated at Limda line was purchased by defendant Kishankumar from Chandraben and others. This property was purchased in the year of 1995 and in the said document; defendant has given his residential Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined address of Avantika complex situated at Limda line, Jamnagar. Averments made by the defendant regarding his residential address in the said document shows that in the year of 1995 defendant Kishankumar Trikamdas was residing at Avantika complex situated at Limda line, Jamnagar and not at Ashok Sadan. Had the defendant was residing at Ashok Sadan than what the reason was for mentioning the residential address at Avantika complex situated at Limda line and not at Ashok Sadan. This documentary evidence clearly shows that in the year of 1995, defendant was residing at Avantika complex situated at Limda line, Jamnagar and not at Ashok Sadan.
23. At this juncture, it is also necessary to discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the defendant. Defendant Kishankumar Trikamdas in support of the defense himself appeared in the witness box as Dw-01 and tendered his affidavit of evidence at Ex-77, wherein re-reiterated the same facts as stated by him in the written statement.
24. Defendant also relied on the gas refilling bills at Ex-63 and Ex-64. Pw-04 Kiritbhai Gulabrai examined by the plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that these bills at Ex-63 and Ex-64 are original bill and are pertaining to Kishankumar Trikamdas Chachara, Ashok Sadan, Opposite Town Hall, Jamnagar issued by Jai Ashapura Gas Service. On the perusal of thesc bills, it appears that these bills were issued on 15-02-2013 and 23-04-2013. Impudent suit was instituted on 29-04-2011. These bills produced by the defendant are after the institution of suit. Defendant has not produced any bill of refilling of gas cylinder for the period prior to the institution of impudent suit. Had the defendant been residing in the disputed property at the time of institution of impudent suit then gas cylinder bills of that period must have been produced by the defendant to show that he was consuming gas in the disputed property, but defendant has failed and this fact shows that defendant was not residing in the disputed property prior. to the impudent suit. Thus these documents are not helpful for the defendant.
25. Defendant has also relied and produced on record copy Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined of bank pass book at Ex-82. This bank pass book was issued by UCO Bank regarding saving bank account maintained by defendant at UCO Bank on which address of defendant has been mentioned as Ashok Sadan Town Hall, Jamnagar. But it appears that entries in the said bank pass book are for the year of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Defendant has not produced detail of bank pass-book for the relevant period and is very old. Thus this document is not much useful for the defendant.
26. Copy of passport at Ex-83 produced by the defendant has expired on 11-07-1987. Defendant has not produced the passport of the period immediately prior to the institution of impudent suit or at the time of death of mother of defendant. Thus this document is not much useful for the defendant.
27. Copy of birth certificate of Mithun produced by the defendant at Ex-84 shows that it was issued on 25-06-1981, thus this document is also not helpful for the defendant. '
28. Defendant also examined Pw-02 Vijaybhai Mandanbhai. He produced two letters dated 15-02-2007 and 13-10-2010 written to the defendant regarding sanction of pension at Ex- 85 and Ex-86. In both of these letters, address of defendant has been mentioned as Ashok Sadan Town Hall. But these two documents are not sufficient to destroy the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Address of defendant at Ashok Sadan must have been given by the defendant at the time of joining the service. Allegation against the defendant is that he was not residing in the disputed property at the time of death of his mother and immediately prior to the institution of impudent suit. If address has not been changed in service record then, communication by the department regarding pension is to be sent at the same address as recorded in the service record. Thus this evidence is not substantial evidence to destroy the evidence of plaintiff and to establish that defendant has been residing at disputed property.
29. In the cross-examination of defendant, copy of sale deed no. 1652 of 2017 was referred and produced at Ex-88. On Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined the perusal of said sale deed, it appears that one plot measuring 84.60 sq meters along with construction thereon in the area of Nandan Park was purchased by the defendant. In the said sale deed also defendant has mentioned his residential address at Avantika Apartment Lida lane Jamnagar. Thus, this document referred in the cross- examination of the defendant also shows that defendant has been residing at Avantika Apartment Limda lane Jamnagar and not at Ashok Sadan. This document was prepared in the year of 2017 then way residential address of defendant has been mentioned as Avantika Apartment Limda lane Jamnagar and not at Ashok Sadan. This document goes against the contention of defendant.
30. Registered AD receipts at Ex-93 and 94 and letters at Ex- 95 to Ex-98 are only letters and acknowledgment and in view of evidence adduced by the plaintiff are not sufficient to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. Copy of Aadhar Card produced by the defendant at. Ex-99 is also cannot be said as sufficient evidence to prove that defendant was residing in the disputed property at the time of death of his mother and immediately prior to the institution of impudent suit.
31. In view of aforesaid discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence on behalf of defendant to show that he was residing in the disputed property with his mother at time of her death on 19-08-2006. There is also no evidence of defendant to show that he was residing in the disputed property within three months immediately preceding the death of his mother. Moreover, there is no evidence of defendant to show that he was residing in the disputed property at any time within six months immediately prior to the institution of impudent suit. On the contrary, evidence adduced by the plaintiff clearly shows that defendant Krishankumar has not been residing in the disputed property. Plaintiff by adducing the evidence has successfully established that defendant has not been residing at disputed property. Evidences adduced by the defendant are not sufficient to rebut the evidences of plaintiff. Therefore, it is held that after death of mother of defendant on 19-08-2006, no tenancy right in the disputed property Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined devolved in favour of defendant. It is further held that defendant is liable to vacate the possession of disputed property on the ground that disputed property has not been used by the defendant for continuous period of more than six month immediately prior to the institution of suit. Hence, issue no.3 is decided in Negative and issue no. 4 is decided in Affirmative."
11. According to this Court, the learned Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated and meticulously reassessed the evidence on record and has, upon such circumspect evaluation, justly negatived the claim of the revisionist. The reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court brooks no deviation from the factual substratum emerging from the evidentiary material on record and remains firmly anchored to the proved facts. In the aforesaid conspectus of circumstances, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court, which are neither perverse nor vitiated by any manifest error of law or appreciation of evidence.
12. Turning to the second limb of the contention, namely, that the plaintiff is neither the landlord nor the rent-collector and, therefore, lacks locus to institute a suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, this Court finds the submission wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It is a trite posit of law that a tenant, having entered into possession of the demised premises under a particular landlord, is estopped from disputing the title or status of such landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy. The untenability of the submission is further accentuated by the fact that the revisionist himself has instituted suit proceedings against the plaintiff in respect of the very same tenanted premises arraying Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Jamnagar Municipal Corporation as other party, on the ground that notice issued by Jamnagar Municipal Corporation qua tenanted premises claiming it to be dilapidated structure, is bad in law thereby acknowledging, albeit implicitly, the plaintiff's status as landlord. Ergo, this contention too fails to survive scrutiny and stands rejected.
13. As far as scope of revision under Section 29(2) of the Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and Others, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 538, has, in para 16, authoritatively enunciated the legal position in the following terms:-
"We must take note of a decision in the case of M/s Kasturbhai Ramchand Panchal & Brothers and Others v. Firm of Mohanlal Nathubhai and Others, AIR 1969 Gujarat 110, upon which the High Court had placed great reliance in the judg- ment under appeal. There the learned judge relying on sec- tion 29(2) of the said Act held that the revisional power with which the High Court was vested under section 29(2) was not merely in the nature of jurisdictional control. It extended to corrections of all errors which would make the decision contrary to law. The legislature, the learned Judge, felt, further empowered High Court in its revisional jurisdiction to pass such order with respect thereto as it thought fit. The power according to the learned Judge was of the widest amplitude to pass such orders as the Court thought fit in order to do complete justice. He dealt with the human problem under section 13(2) of Bombay Rent Act considering the relative hardships of the landlord and the tenant and to arrive at a just solution he was of the opin- ion that the court should have such wide field. The juris- diction of High Court is to correct all errors of law going to the root of the decision which would, in such cases, include even perverse findings of facts, perverse in the sense that no reasonable person, acting judicially and properly instructed in the relevant law could arrive at such a finding on the Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined evidence on the record. In this view in our opinion the ambit of the power was expressed in rather wide amplitude. As we read the power, the High Court must ensure that the principles of law have been correctly borne in mind. Secondly, the facts have been properly appreciated and a decision arrived at taking all material and relevant facts in mind. It must be such a decision which no reasonable man could have arrived at. Lastly, such a decision does not lead to a miscarriage of justice. We must, however, guard our- selves against permitting in the guise of revision substitu- tion of one view where two views are possible and the Court of Small Causes has taken a particular view. If a possible view has been taken, the High Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction to substitute its own view with that the courts below because it considers it to be a better view. The fact that the High Court would have taken a different view is wholly irrelevant. Judged by that standard, we are of the opinion that the High Court in this case had exceeded its jurisdiction."
14. Keeping abreast of law as authoritatively enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Courts below have correctly appreciated and applied the governing statutory provisions to the facts obtaining in the present case. The impugned concurrent findings are neither vitiated by perversity nor do they suffer from any manifest error of law or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
15. This Court, therefore, finds no justifiable ground to interdict the well-reasoned and concurrent conclusions recorded by the Courts below. The revision application, being utterly devoid of merit, fails. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
16. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. The Record and Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/357/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 undefined Proceedings, if any, shall be remitted back to the concerned Court below without delay.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Jan 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 22 21:31:39 IST 2026