SAURASHTRA RACHNATMAK SAMITI & ORS. v. LEGAL HEIR OF DECD. FULCHAND DEVJI MEHTA & ORS.

decree qua the first floor portion of the premises which was passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.634 of 1971, hence the present Revision Applications. Submissions of the learned senior advocate for the defendant:

#6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Bhaskar Tanna for the defendant, has mainly argued that, the Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and thereby committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate that the Appellate Court has without any basis come to the conclusion that the plaintiff required the suit premises for reasonable and bonafide requirement. It has also been argued by the learned Senior Advocate that, the Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff would be put to greater hardship than the defendants, even when there was ample evidence on record that greater hardship would be caused to C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 the defendants if the decree of eviction is passed. It has also been argued by the learned senior advocate for the defendant that the Appellate Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Rent Act, and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the defendants should shift to another premises and therefore, it has been argued that the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.182 of 1981 and 199 of 1981 are required to be quashed and set aside.

#7. Learned senior advocate Mr.Tanna has for the defendants has argued that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the suit property was given on rent by Fulchand Devji Mehta, and that he was residing at Aden and the said suit was filed in the year 1971 and the said suit was filed against (1) Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti (2) Khadi Gramodhyog Bhandar, Jamnagar(3) the Manager of Khadi Gramodhyog, and while filing the suit, the plaintiff has not stated whether defendant no.1 was a society or a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate that the said fact had been brought to the notice of the plaintiff in the year 1975, when the defendant filed an application for amendment of his written statement and it was brought to notice that the trustees of Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti, have not been joined as parties and therefore as the C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 tenant of the suit properties were a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, unless the trust and the trustees were joined in the suit, the Court could not have granted a decree of eviction against the defendants.

#8. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate that the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, have come to the conclusion that the said amendment whereby the fact of defendant no.1 being a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, was done at the last minute in the suit, which is factually not correct, in view of the fact that the judgment was delivered in the year 1981 and therefore, it cannot be said that at the last minute, the said amendment was sought by the defendants.

#9. The learned senior advocate has also argued that, the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction could not have been decreed by the Court, in view of the fact that the suit fails because of non- joinder of trustees and as the said fact goes to the root of the matter and that, there is no finding despite the clear amendment made in the written statement, the Appellate Court could not have granted a decree of eviction. Moreover, if the entire pleading and oral evidence of the plaintiff are taken into consideration, the fact remains that it was stated that the plaintiff requires the ground floor portion of the suit premises C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 for commercial purposes, for his own reasonable and bonafide requirements, and the upper portion of the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for his own reasonable and bonafide requirements for residential purposes. The Trial Court, while rejecting the claim for the ground floor portion, has taken into consideration the comparative hardship of the parties, and came to a finding that there were adequate arrangements of the plaintiff's for their business. Therefore, the First Appellate Court could not have reversed the findings of the Trial Court with respect to the ground floor portion of the suit premises.

#10. The learned senior advocate also argued that the concept of there being large number of family members cannot be a ground for eviction of a tenant from the suit premises, in view of the fact that the original plaintiff landlord had given the suit property on rent, and therefore the change of circumstances could not be a ground to evict the tenant from the premises and therefore, comparative hardship was also in favor of the defendants and the Appellate Court could not have reversed the said findings of the Trial Court for the ground floor portion of the suit property.

#11. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has argued that the plaintiffs have been possessing suitable, rented premises for their residence and business purposes and C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 therefore also, the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the suit premises on the ground that his son requires the suit premises and therefore, the requirement of the plaintiff's son cannot be a bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiff-landlord.

#12. Moreover, it has been argued that the fact that the plaintiff has provided and suggested alternative accommodation, cannot be a ground to evict the defendants from the suit property.

#13. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has also argued that the plaintiff has not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate for the defendants that, if the oral evidence of the plaintiff and his son, Rameshchandra, are taken into consideration, the same does not prove the fact that the plaintiff requires the suit property reasonably and bonafide for his personal use and occupation.

#14. The learned advocate for the defendants has also argued that the Appellate Court has also not decided the issue of greater hardship, in view of the fact that greater hardship will be caused to the defendants, if the decree of eviction is passed. C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025

#15. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendants that the plaintiff has stated that there are 25 members in his family and that he is residing in rented premises situated at Sheri No.2, Nagarpara at Jamnagar and that the said premises, are not sufficient to accommodate all members of his family and that he is paying the rent of Rs.200/- and that rent note was produced, vide Exhibit 71 and the rent receipts were produced, vide Exhibits 72 and 73 and therefore, the defendants tenant had proved that the landlord is possessing residence accommodation and there was no hardship that would be caused to the plaintiff and therefore, the Appellate Court could not have granted a decree of eviction of the defendant, considering the fact that greater hardship would be caused to the defendant, if the defendant is evicted from the suit property.

#16. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has also argued that, it has come on record that plaintiff has various buildings in his occupation for residence and business purpose and that rented premise is in possession of the plaintiff, for residence comprised with 6 rooms, 1 storeroom, kitchen and 2 osaries. While according to the plaintiff, the said rented premises are comprising only of 3 rooms, kitchen and 2 osari. The learned advocate for the defendants has also argued that, it C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 has come on record that there were two rented premises and a godown in possession of the plaintiff for business purpose and that his son Vimesh is doing business of provision store and the rent receipts of the same are also produced vide Exhibits 91 and 92. It has also come on record that there was another shop which was situated at locality known as Hawai Chowk, Jamnagar and the rent receipts for the same were produced, vide Exhibits 89 and 90 and the said shop, the plaintiff was using for the business, known as Cycle Auto Agency and running provision store by the name and style International Agency, and the rent note to that effect was produced, vide Exhibit 75.

#17. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has also argued that the plaintiff also was in possession of one godown situated at the place and locality known as Ananda Bawa Chakla, and the rent receipt of the said godown was produced vide Exhibits 78 to 82. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff in his evidence has stated that the two shops and godown are not sufficient for him to do business and therefore, he required the suit premises to start a business of provision store, therefore, it has been admitted that the plaintiff had other alternative premises and therefore, the plaintiff does not require the suit premises for his reasonable and bonafide requirement to do business, the C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 plaintiff has stated that the Cycle Business, known as Cycle Auto Agency, was done by his son and his son obtained registration of the said business and that his four sons had executed partnership deed, for the said Cycle Business and that none of his business was running in the name and style of Fulchand Devaji Joint Hindu Family Firm, therefore the plaintiff has other premises for residence and business therefore the Appellate Court could not have passed a decree of eviction.

#18. Moreover, it has been argued by the learned senior advocate for the defendants that it has also come on record that, two sons of the plaintiff namely Gunavantrai and Mahendra are at present at Dubai, therefore also the bonafide requirement of the sons could not be a ground for eviction of the defendants from the suit property.

#19. The learned senior advocate for the defendants has relied on the following judgments:

#1. 2003 (2) GLH 148 Dwarkaprasad V/s. Niranjan: Which discusses about the legal position for granting a decree under Section 13(1)(g).

#2. (2003) 2 SCC 320 Badrinaryan Chunilal Bhutada V/s. C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, wherein it has been held that concept of comparative hardship lies in domain of equitable or social justice.

#3. (2001) 8 SCC 561 Siddalingamma & Anr. V/s. Mamtha Shenoy, while deciding bonafide requirement of landlord, the test will on the proven facts on record, the need to occupy the premises should be natural, real, sincere, honest.

#4. (2001) 2 SCC 604 Gaya Prasad V/s. Pradeep Srivastava, wherein it has been held that the landlord should not be penalized for the slowness of the legal system and the crutial date to decide the bonafide requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction.

#5. 2001 (2) GCD 1716 Amubai Ibrahimbhai V/s. Fakruddin Abbulhusain, on the issue as the Appellate Court has powers to reappreciate and reassess the evidence and if the landlord fails to establish any ground evicting the tenant, the said findings of the Appellate Court can not be interfered.

#6. (1999) 1 SCC 439 M.S. Zahed V/s. K. Raghavan, wherein the Court held that the reasonable and bonafide requirement must not only be bonafide but also be C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 reasonable.

#7. 1999 (1) GLR 15 Patel Valmik Himatlal V/s. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai, wherein it has been held that the High Court cannot rehear the matter and reappreciate the evidence but can correct mistakes of law which goes to the root of the decision.

#8. 1993 (1) GLR Mukundlal Nanalal Chanawala V/s. Bhagvatsingh Dhansingh Gadaria, wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to consider the question of relative hardship of respective parties first to find out as to whom the greater hardship would be caused in case of partial decree.

#9. 1968 GLR 729 Kasturbhai Ramchand Panchal & Bros. V/s. Firm of M/s. Mohanlal Nathubhai, Wherein it has been held that if the requirement of the landlord is not reasonable for the whole of the premises and partial decree could be passed without causing any hardship to the either side, the question would be resolved on the second ground contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act. The judgments that have been relied upon by the learned senior advocate for the defendants are on general principles C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 of rent act and therefore, they have not been dealt with separately, in view of the fact that the said are the basic principles under, which the Court will have to take into consideration a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act and while deciding the present Revisions, this Court has taken into consideration the same and even while dealing with the judgments relied upon by the learned advocate for the plaintiff the judgments relied on by the defendants are dealt with.

#20. Therefore, it has been argued by the learned senior advocate for hte defendants that the present Revision Applications are required to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal Nos.182 and 199 of 1981, are required to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree, whereby partial eviction of the 1st floor portion of the suit property is granted in favour of the plaintiff, in Civil Suit is also required to be quashed and set aside. Submissions of the learned advocate for the plaintiff:

#21. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that, the defendant no.1 tenant came to be inducted in the suit property as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.200/- in the year 1956. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 the original plaintiff along with his family members were residing at Aden, since he was fourteen years old. The defendant no.1 is a society registered under the Society’s Registration Act, on 28.01.1953 and the registration certificate is produced vide Exhibit 271.

#22. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that, the suit property comprises of shop on the front on the ground floor, store room in the rear, two rooms, bathrooms, stair case on the eastern side and first floor and the suit property is capable of being used for residence and commercial purpose and in the year 1962-63 the rent of the suit property was increased to Rs.500/-.

#23. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that, as there was political unrest at Aden, the plaintiff started correspondence with defendant no.1-tenant from Aden and documentary evidence to support the same were produced vide Exhibits 49, 136 to 139, 188 to 189 and therefore the plaintiff’s sons and daughter came to Jamnagar and were residing in rented premises.

#24. Thereafter, in the year 1971, the plaintiff also left Aden and came to Jamnagar. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that the original plaintiff and his son showed and C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 suggested various alternative accommodation to the defendants and as the defendants did not vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff filed suit seeking eviction of the defendants from the suit property on the ground of personal requirement i.e. Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act.

#25. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his family members are occupying rented premises for residence and for commercial purposes and that, defendant no.1-tenant has, been shown various alternative accommodations, but the defendants did not give any response and the plaintiff and his family members were required to obtain residential and commercial premises on rent, as defendant no.1 refused to vacate the suit property and that the commercial premises occupied by the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit were inadequate for development of the business and therefore, the plaintiff desired to commence a provision store on the ground floor portion and utilize the first floor portion for residence purpose.

#26. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that on the aspect of comparative hardship with regard to the first floor for residence, the Appellate Court has discussed the same and has concluded that the Trial Court has considered all the relevant facts and the findings recorded by the Trial Court C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, cannot be interfered with.

#27. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has sufficiently adduced the evidence and satisfied the Court that, there is not a mere desire, but there was a need of the suit premises for personal use and occupation and that the defendants have not pointed out any ground or circumstances to show that the plaintiff's requirement was not bonafide.

#28. Moreover, it has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that, considering section 13(2) of the Rent Act, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have taken into consideration that the plaintiff's occupation in a rented premises is of a temporary accommodation and when the plaintiff is asking for a decree of possession of the suit premises, the same does not bar him, if the plaintiff is occupying a rented premises. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have taken into consideration the size of the family of the plaintiff and have come to the conclusion that, the evidence in respect of the size of the family of the plaintiff and the size, area and accommodation of the rented premises, was in no way impeached and it has been argued that the plaintiff C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 has shown by reasons of his stature, number of members in his family, size and accommodation of the rented premises for residence and nature of his business, that he requires suitable and sufficient residential accommodation and that the demand of the plaintiff is infact genuine for residence purpose of the first floor portion.

#29. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that, it would be unfair to ask the plaintiff to occupy rented premises, when a premises is owned by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff cannot be forced to search a rented house for himself, especially when the plaintiff himself owns his own house.

#30. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the Appellate Court has also considered different rented premises which were occupied by the sons of the plaintiff, to do business and it has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the want of the plaintiff to shift business in the suit premises is not a matter to be decided by the Court and the want of the plaintiff, that will have to be taken into consideration and the alternative rental accommodation cannot wipe out the need of the plaintiff and therefore, it has been argued that both the Civil Revision Applications are required to be quashed and set aside, in view C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 of the fact that the scope of interference of the Revision Court under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act is only, if there is miscarriage of justice, due to mistake of law and this Court cannot reassess the value of evidence and interfere with the finding of fact merely because it thinks that the appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Court is wrong and that the Appellate Court should have reached a different conclusion of fact from what it did and therefore.

#31. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the following judgments : -For the point of interference of this Hon’ble Court under Section 29 (2) of Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the following judgments have been relied on.

#1. (1947) 1 SCC 661 – Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel and others.

#2. (1981) 3 SCC 502 – Bhaichand Ratanshi v. Laxmishankar Tribhovan. 3 (1987) 3 SCC 538 – Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others.

4.(1996) 5 SCC 353 – Prativa Devi v. TV Krishnan: paras 1, 2, 4.

#5. (2000) 1 SCC 679 – Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co.

#6. (2000) 5 SCC 1 – Vaneet Jain v. Jagjit Singh. C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025

#7. (2008) 9 SCC 1 – Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj and others.

#8. (2009) 9 SCC 678 – N. Eswari v. K Swarajya Lakshmi.

#9. (2010) 11 SCC 777- Sameer Kumar Pal and another v. Sheikh Akbar and others.

#10. 2010 SCCOnline Guj 12293- Patel Kanjibhai v. Modi Manjulaben Babulal.

#11. (2017) 14 SCC 132 – Ambadas Khanduji Shinde and others v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar and others.

#12. (2018) 12 SCC 576 – Gandhe Vijay Kumar v. Mulji alias Mulchand.

#13. (2019) 9 SCC 282 – D. Sasi Kumar v. Soundararanjan.

#14. (2020) 19 SCC 254 – Thankamony Amma and others v. Omana Amma N. and others. -For the Question of landlord’s reasonable and bona fide requirement of premises for his own use and occupation is one of fact following judgments have been relied upon:

#1. (2008) 1 SCC 173 – Julieta Antonieta Tarcato v. Suleiman Ismail

#2. (2008) 7 SCC 770 – Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and others C/CRA/248/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2025 - For the point that Landlord is the best judge of his requirement / Court cannot direct/require landlord to do buiness in a particular area the following judgments are relied upon:

#1. (2010) 12 SCC 740 – Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali

#2. (2012) 2 SCC 155 – Mohd. Ayub and another v. Mukesh Chand

#3. (2017) 5 SCC 640- Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma -For the point of delay in adjudication/ subsequent events/ crucial date for deciding the following judgments are relied upon: