Gujarat High Court
Mohammad Jamil Alimiya Shaikh vs Mohammad Ishaq Sirajbhai on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 of 2024
==========================================================
MOHAMMAD JAMIL ALIMIYA SHAIKH
Versus
MOHAMMAD ISHAQ SIRAJBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M T SAIYAD(3848) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DEVANGI B SOLANKI(8888) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
SABIRHUSEN J SAIYED(8847) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application, invoking the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity, 'the Rent Act'), is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2017, whereby the learned Appellate Court - the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad - vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2023, was pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2016 passed in H.R.P. Suit No. 445 of 2013.
2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: The suit property, being City Survey No. 2989 and Municipal Census No. 1582/2 admeasuring 104.10 sq. mtrs., comprising two rooms, an open land portion on the southern side, and a latrine-bathroom situated at Ward Shahpur-2, Ahmedabad, is the subject matter of the present proceedings (hereinafter, "the suit property"). The father of the present applicant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property as far back as 1942. The Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined suit property was initially owned by another landlord, who had instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 39 of 1979 wherein the standard rent of the premises came to be fixed at Rs.23/- per month. The respondent subsequently purchased the suit property from the said erstwhile owner by a registered sale deed dated 13.08.2012 and, ergo, became entitled to receive rent only from the date of such purchase.
2.1. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent issued a demand notice claiming arrears of rent for the period between 01.01.1997 and 31.03.2013 at the rate of Rs.100/- per month, despite the standard rent being Rs.23/- per month. The said notice was addressed to a flat purchased by the applicant's sister--who resides in Paris--though the applicant himself never resided there. The respondent thereafter instituted H.R.P. Suit No. 445 of 2013 before the learned Small Causes Court, seeking eviction on several grounds including alleged acquisition of suitable accommodation and arrears of rent. All other grounds were negatived, and the suit came to be decreed solely on the ground of arrears of rent vide judgment below Exh. 84. The applicant's challenge thereto in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2017 before the Small Causes Court Appellate Bench No. 1, Ahmedabad, came to be dismissed by order below Exh. 48, culminating in the present proceedings.
3. At the very outset, learned advocate for the revisionist submitted that the entire edifice of the impugned decree rests on a fundamentally erroneous assumption that the applicant was in arrears of rent for a period commencing from 01.01.1997, notwithstanding the incontrovertible position of law that the respondent-landlord, having acquired title to the suit property only on 13.08.2012, could not, in vacuo, lay a claim for arrears pertaining Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined to any period antecedent to his purchase. In absence whereof, the very foundation of the findings recorded by both the Courts below crumbles.
3.1. It is further submitted that the demand notice forming the substratum of the eviction proceedings is vitiated ab initio, for it was dispatched to an address where the applicant never resided, nay, to a premises owned and intermittently occupied by the applicant's sister residing in Paris. The statutory requirement of issuance of a valid, due, and proper demand notice--being the life-blood of proceedings under the Rent Act--has indubitably not been complied with, thereby rendering the decree inexecutable as a matter of law.
3.2. The Courts below also failed to appreciate that the standard rent, having been judicially determined at Rs.23/- per month in H.R.P. Suit No. 39 of 1979, could not have been unilaterally enhanced by the respondent to Rs.100/- per month. The impugned decree, resting on alleged arrears computed at an impermissible and inflated rate, is, ergo, unsustainable. The factual milieu, as delineated in the record, is utterly devoid of any indica of a dishonest or contumacious intent on the part of the applicant to withhold rent.
3.3. Thus, it is contended that the concurrent findings suffer from perversity and non-application of mind, having failed to consider vital evidence and the settled trite posit of law governing arrears of rent, validity of notice, and limitation under the Rent Act. The impugned judgments, if allowed to stand, would amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the opponent submitted that Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the applicant's attempt to assail the impugned concurrent findings is wholly misconceived, for both the Courts below, upon a meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record, have returned a pellucid finding that the applicant was in chronic arrears of rent and had failed to comply with the statutory mandate of depositing the same even after receipt of the demand notice. The plea of an incorrect address is an afterthought, raised sub silentio before the Trial Court, and stands belied by the fact that the notice was duly dispatched to the address furnished by the applicant himself in prior proceedings. The applicant's conduct, in tandem with his long-standing failure to tender rent, clearly exhibits animus possidendi inconsistent with the obligations of a statutory tenant.
4.1. It is further submitted that the applicant's argument regarding the respondent's entitlement to recover rent only from 13.08.2012 pales into insignificance, inasmuch as the eviction decree is not premised upon arrears predating the respondent's purchase, but upon the applicant's continued default even thereafter. The standard rent fixed in the earlier proceedings does not exonerate the applicant from the basic duty to tender rent at least at that rate. The Courts below, exercising jurisdiction vested in them under the Rent Act, have rightly held that the applicant's defences were illusory and have concurrently decreed eviction. No perversity, much less any jurisdictional error, is demonstrated so as to warrant interference in revision.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for both sides and have meticulously perused the relevant record.
6. It is apposite to note that the landlord instituted the HRP Suit Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined under the provisions of the Rent Act seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on multiple grounds, including, inter alia, the ground of arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months as on the date of issuance of the statutory notice under Section 22 of the Rent Act.
6.1. The learned trial Court was pleased to frame the issues at Exh. 21, which read thus: -
a) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have got suitable accommodation?
b) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit?
c) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff reasonable and bonafide requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as alleged?
d) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has made illegal permanent construction in the suit premises?
e) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is tenant in arrears of rerit as alleged?
f) Is the suit notice legal and valid?
g) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
h) What order and decree?
6.2. Issues No. 1 to 4 have been answered in the negative, whereas Issues No. 5 to 7 have been answered in the affirmative, culminating in the passing of an eviction decree by the Court below. What unmistakably emerges is that the learned Trial Court did not accept the landlord's grounds pertaining to the tenant having acquired alternative suitable accommodation, the alleged non use of the premises, the plea of bona fide requirement, or the allegation of illegal permanent construction. However, the learned Trial Court did Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined uphold the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months as on the date of the suit, and that the statutory notice issued to the tenant was legal and valid.
6.3. It is further evident that the defendant did not raise any dispute either regarding the standard rent or alleging that the rent demanded in the statutory notice was excessive, at any stage prior to filing the written statement. It is also not the case of the tenant that the statutory notice was not duly served. The statutory notice has been produced at Exh. 36, and the postal acknowledgments evidencing its service have been brought on record at Exh. 37 and Exh. 38.
6.4. In the aforementioned factual milieu, it would be apposite to advert to Section 12 of the Rent Act, which reads thus: -
"12. No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases.
(1)A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.
(2)No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(3)No decree for eviction shall be passed by the Court in any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined standard rent and permitted increases if , on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and together with simple interest on the amount of arrears of such standard rent and permitted increases at the rate of nine per cent. per annum; and thereafter continues to pay or tenders in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays cost of the suit as directed by the Court.Provided that, the relief provided under this sub-section shall not be available to a tenant to whom relief against forfeiture was given in any two suits previously instituted by the landlord against such tenant.
(4)Pending the disposal of any such suit, the Court may out of any amount paid or tendered by the tenant pay to the landlord such amount towards payment of rent or permitted increase due to him as the Court thinks fit.
Explanation I - In any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of standard rent of permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), he makes an application to the Court under sub-section (3) of section 11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases specified in the order made by the Court.
Explanation II .- For the purposes of sub-section (2), reference to "standard rent" and "permitted increase" shall include reference to "interim standard rent" and "interim permitted increase" specified under sub-section (3) or (4) of section 11.Explanation III.- For the purposes of this section where, a tenant has deducted any amount from the rent due to the landlord under section 173C of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for recovery or any water tax or charges paid by him to the Commissioner, the tenant shall be deemed to have paid the rent to the extent of deductions so made by him."
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
7. It is discernible that the controversy inter se between the parties stands circumscribed within the narrow compass of arrears of rent, thereby inviting the applicability of either Section 12(3)(a) or Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. To bring the case within the rigour of Section 12(3)(a), the statutory pre-conditions must be scrupulously satisfied: firstly, that the rent is payable by the month; secondly, that the tenant is in arrears for a period of six months or more as on the date of issuance of the statutory notice; thirdly, that the notice under Section 12(2)--being ex facie mandatory in character--validly demands such arrears and is duly served upon the tenant; and fourthly, that the tenant has neglected to tender the arrears within one month from the date of service of the said notice. It bears reiteration that all these ingredients must coexist simultaneously; the absence of even a singular requirement would denude the landlord of the right to secure a decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a). It is equally well-settled that once the tenant fails to purge the default within one month of the service of notice, any subsequent payment--whether before the institution of the suit or during its pendency--avails him nothing. (See: Manorama v. Dhanlaxmi, AIR 1967 SC 1098). Thus, as felicitously enunciated by the Bombay High Court in Yashbhai Gangadhar v. Rampath, AIR 1975 Bom 20, a vested right accrues in favour of the landlord under Section 12(3)(a) to obtain a decree of eviction, provided the aforesaid statutory conditions stand cumulatively fulfilled.
8. In contradistinction, where the case is governed by Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act, the tenant is afforded statutory protection, provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent either on the first day of hearing of the suit or on such subsequent date as the Court may determine. It is axiomatic that the invocation of Section 12(3)(a) or Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined 12(3)(b) is intrinsically linked to the issue of standard rent as contemplated under Section 11 of the Rent Act. If the tenant sets up a plea--either by replying to the statutory notice under Section 12(2) or by instituting an application under Section 11--asserting that the rent demanded in notice is not the standard rent, the matter would, by necessary legal implication, should be relegated to the ambit of Section 12(3)(b), even though the arrears may not have been tendered within one month of the service of the statutory notice.
9. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on Issues Nos. 5 and 6 are extracted hereinbelow:-
Issue nos.5 and 6:-
10) As per case of the plaintiff, the rate of the rent Rs.100/-
p.m. of the suit premises and municipal tax etc. is liable to pay by the defendants tenants. The defendants are tenant in arrears of rent from 01/01/2011 to 31/03/2013 i,e. Rs.100/- X 147 months = Rs. 14,700/- and the defendants-tenants have not deposited municipal tax, therefore, the plaintiff has given legal notice to the defendant and asked arrears of rent on dtd. 12/04/2013 vide Exh.36, which is duly served to the defendants vide Exh.37. Although the defendants have not given reply or complied the said notice. Moreover, the defendants have not filed Standard Rent Application within one month from the date of service of notice. Therefore, the defendant is liable to evict the suit premises U/s.12 of the Rent Act. On the other hand the defendants have contented that the defendants are not tenant in arrears of rent the suit premises had been rented at the rate of Rs.23 p.m. ion year 1942 and landlord is liable to pay municipal tax etc. He has denial the rate of rent Rs.100/- p.m. Further he has stated that, Hon'ble Court had decided rate of the rent Rs.23/-p.m. of the suit premises in H.R.P. Suit No.39/79 and the tenant had also filed Standard Rent Application at that time. Further he has stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit premises on ta. 13/08/2012 therefore as per the terms of the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined sell deed new landlord - owner cannot recover due rent amount before the date of sell deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get vacate possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent.
10.1. Looking to the evidence on the record, the plaintifi has stated in his cross-examination that he has paid the rate of the rent Rs.100/- and municipal tax is borne by the defendants because previous owner has informed this fact to him. The defendant no.2 is stated in his cross-examination vide Exh.58 that after the death of his father Alimiya he or his mother Jebedaben has not paid the rent amount to the old owner or new owner of the suit premises and not taken any rent receipt. Further he has stated that, it is not sent the due rent amount to the old or new owner of the suit premises. Further he has stated that he has not sent money order of the amount which is due as pe his knowledge/ opinion. Looking to the deposition of the parties, the defendants have not paid the due rent amount as per his opinion or knowledge to the plaintiff from the death of the original tenant i.e. Alimiya and the said Alimiya was died on dtd.24/03/2003. Therefore it can be presumed that the defendants - tenants have not paid the due rent amount from 2003. Moreover, the defendants have not produced any rent receipts therefore I have no reason to accept the statement of the plaintiff that there is due rent amount from the date 01/01 / 1997 to 31/03/2013.
10.2. The plaintiff has asked due rent amount of Rs.100 X 147 = Rs.14,700/- in his plaint for the period of 01/01/2007 to 31/03/2013. But as per terms of the sell deed vide Exh.35 the original owner has written in the sell deed that we will recover the due rent amount till today from the tenant thenafter you will recover due rent." looking to this fact of the sell deed, the new landlord cannot recover the due rent amount before the execution of the date of the sell deed i.e.13/08/2012. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the due rent amount from September, 2012 notice is given on dtd.12/04/2013, therefore at the time of notice there was due rent amount for eight months.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
10.4. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has reliance submitted judgment reported in.....
(1) 2004 Bom. R.C. Page-298 in the matter between Ishwar Niwruti Danane Vs. Laxman Fakirsa Burbure wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - section 12 - Default in payment of rent - failure to deposit the rent on the first date - no dispute about standard rent raised within one month from the receipt of notice - deposit of rent at the time of framing of issue is not sufficient compliance - held that the landlord is entitled to decree of eviction.
(2) 2006 (2) GLR page-1199 in the matter between Popatlal M. Bhanshali Vs. K. S. Modhiya wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "The present case does not fall with a Sec.12(3)(a) because it is on the record of the case that the rent was payable by month, secondly, there was no dispute of standard rent, because the contention of standard rent is sought to be raised for the first time in the written statement, thirdly, the tenant neither replied to the notice under sec.12(2) of the Act nor raised, dispute regarding standard rent. On giving anxious thought to the facts of the case, the Court feels that the case did not fall within the ambit of sec.12(3)(b), but is squarely falls within sec. 12(3)(a) and there being no compliance of the conditions prescribed therein, a decree for possession is to be passed."
10.5. Looking to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited jugdment and case on hand, the defendants have not raised dispute regarding the standard rent from the one month of service of legal notice. Moreover it is evident of the case that the rate of the rent was payable by monthly. Moreover the defendants have not given reply to the notice of the arrears of rent vide Exh.36 inspite of duly served. Therefore I am of the view that the rate of the rent Rs. 100/- of the suit premises and municipal tax is liable to pay by the defendants, therefore suit is fall under section-12 (3) (a) of the Rent Act. Therefore as per the above Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the due rent amount Rs.100/- X months = Rs.800/-• 10.6. The plaintiff has asked due rent amount from the date of 01/01/1997 but as per sell deed, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the due rent amount before 13/08/2012. The plaintiff has written entire due rent in his notice. As per above discussion the defendants have not paid the due rent amount to the original landlord-present plaintiff before 2013. Therefore, the plaintiff has not written wrong amount of the due rent but the plaintiff is not entitled to get the due rent amount before the sell deed dtd. 13/08/2012. Thus, the plaintiff is asking entire due rent amount in the his notice vide Exh.36 it cannot be said that this notice is illegal and invalid.
10.7. The defendants have reliance submitted the judgment reported in....
LAWS (GJH) - 1995 -2 - 59 in the matter between Shah Ashokkumar Manilal Vs. Gandhi Vrailal Gabhrulal, and stated that the notice Exh.36 is not legal and valid as per this judgment. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has 10.10. For the sake of argument, it is believed that this matter is fall under section-12(3)(b) then the defendants have to pay or deposit the due rent amount on the first day of the hearing of the suit i.e. the date of the framing of issue and the issues are framed on dtd. 18/01/2014 vide Exh.21 but the defendants have deposited the due rent of Rs. 1600/- in the Court dtd.
27/01/2014. It is shown that the defendants have deposited the due rent amount after first date of the hearing of the suit. Therefore, the defendants are liable to vacate the suit premises under section- 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act."held that in this judgment that, para-2. "In Bapulal's case (Supra), the factual position was such as would fall in the aforesaid ratio settled by this Court in that case. In that case notice indicated monthly rent but it did not set out the date from Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined which it was due or the amount that was due.
The requisition in the notice was merely to pay up all the arrears of rent. In the present case, the suit notice indicates the date from which the rent fell due.".
"It appears to me that simply because by mistake or oversight the landlord had demanded the rent for the month for which it was not due, that would certainly not make the notice invalid. The view taken by the learned Assistant Judge is, therefore, not correct.".....
para-3. "In my opinion, so far as the suit notice is concerned, both on the ratio set out by this Court as well as pursuant to the obwervations sought brought down from the decision of the Apex court by the Bombay High Court, the suit notice cannot be held to be vague or not in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 12(2) of the Rent Act.
10.10. For the sake of argument, it is believed that this matter is fall under section-12(3)(b) then the defendants have to pay or deposit the due rent amount on the first day of the hearing of the suit i.e. the date of the framing of issue and the issues are framed on dtd. 18/01/2014 vide Exh.21 but the defendants have deposited the due rent of Rs. 1600/- in the Court dtd. 27/01/2014. It is shown that the defendants have deposited the due rent amount after first date of the hearing of the suit. Therefore, the defendants are liable to vacate the suit premises under section- 12 (3) (b) of the Rent Act."
10. The learned Trial Court, while adjudicating upon the issue pertaining to arrears of rent for a period exceeding one month, has concomitantly examined the validity and legal efficacy of the statutory notice. In doing so, the Court adverted to Exh. 5, the sale deed executed in favour of the landlord, wherein the erstwhile Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined landlord had expressly reserved his right to recover arrears of rent up to 13.08.2012. The learned Trial Court, upon a meticulous scrutiny of the said document, concluded that the liability to tender rent to the new landlord commenced from September 2012, and the statutory notice under Section 12(2) was issued on 12.04.2013. Ergo, on the date of issuance of the notice, the arrears indisputably exceeded six months, thereby fulfilling one of the essential ingredients embedded in Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act.
11. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned advocate for the revisionist was unable to demonstrate any error committed by the Courts below.
12. In a factually analogous situation, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Devdatt Narayan Shetti v. Prahladbhai Punjiram Parekh, rendered in Civil Revision Application No. 212 of 2018 and cognate matters, relied upon the seminal pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 120, wherein it has been held as under:--
"12. In the wake of aforesaid situation, the proposition of law, which has been narrated by the learned advocate by placing reliance upon the decisions, which are delivered, have no application for the simple reason that background of fact here is quite different from what has been prevailing on the cases which have been cited. The decision in the case of Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin (supra) in which a tenant had paid rent after institution of the suit and in that situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that there is no discretion 2019:GUJHC:30594 left with the Court, but to pass an order of eviction under Section 12 Sub Section 2 of the Act. But here is the case on hand, in which, undisputedly, the amount of rent for this very premises in question has been deposited Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/20/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined in the earlier suit, the tenant has shown willingness and given consent to allow the present plaintiff to withdraw such amount of rent which has been deposited. But, here is the plaintiff who has chosen deliberately not to withdraw the said amount just to create an artificial circumstance of arrears of rent after attornment notice and that has found not in favour of the petitioner, and as such, this Court is of the opinion that no error is committed by the courts below and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in a situation like this is not possible to be applied as a straitjacket formula.
13. The same is the case with respect to another decision which is in the case of Shri Vidya Prachar Trust (supra) wherein also non-payment of rent was due, but the background of fact is not like the present controversy, and essentially, a close reading of the said judgment would make it clear that in a different statute effect of Section 31 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act is dealt with which in considered opinion of this Court is not possible to be applied here. As a result of this, no case is made out in the present Civil Revision Application to call for any interference."
13. Therefore, I discern no compelling reason to depart from the view propounded by the Coordinate Bench in Devdatt Narayan Shetti (supra). It is apposite to underscore that the decree rendered by the learned Trial Court, and subsequently affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, already stands executed, and the possession of the demised premises has heretofore been restored to the landlord pursuant thereto.
14. In light of the aforesaid ratiocination, I find no warrant for interference in the present Civil Revision Application. Ergo, the Revision stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Dec 08 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:34:21 IST 2025