Revision application was dismissed as the High Court found no illegality in lower courts' order dismissing the suit due to lack of material evidence for tenancy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/CRA/384/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 384 of 2018
========================================================== VITTHALBHAI MANIBHAI FULMADI & 2 other(s)
Versus
SHRI SAYAJIGUNJ DUTT MANDIR TRUST
========================================================== Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 03/03/2020
ORAL ORDER
Concurrent findings rendered by the courts below finding the petitioner not to be the tenant of the opponent is sought to be assailed in this revision application on the ground that in absence of written statement as also in absence of the authority with the witness of the opponent Mr. Solanki and in absence of the evidence by the opponent as regards the nature of occupancy of the predecessor of the petitioner and in absence of notice to vacate, the suit ought to have been decreed.
On consideration of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that, while in the pleadings, the petitioner claimed to be the statutory tenant with the monthly rent of Rs.15/- which was subsequently raised to Rs.25/- per month; in the oral testimony of the petitioner it was discerned that the original tenant was employee of the opponent and it was in that
Page 1 of 2
C/CRA/384/2018 ORDER
capacity that he was put in occupancy of the suit property. Lawfullness of occupancy ended with the discharge of the applicant from service and claim of tenancy was required to be justified by the plaintiff by evidence. The courts below did not find any material evidence to that effect and therefore were within the jurisdiction to dismiss the case. In the opinion of this court, when the burden of proof lay upon the petitioner to justify as above, non-filing of the written statement and the lack of authority with Mr. Solanki to depose on behalf of the opponent trust or that the evidence tendered by Mr. Solanki was no evidence in absence of the written statement and in absence of notice to vacate, would not better the case of the petitioner. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J)
syed/
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the suit against the petitioner can be assailed in a civil revision application given the lack of material evidence supporting statutory tenancy.
Whether the non-filing of the written statement and absence of notice to vacate affords any ground for granting relief to the petitioner.
Whether the courts below were within jurisdiction to dismiss the case when the burden of proof for tenancy lay upon the petitioner.
VITTHALBHAI MANIBHAI FULMADI & 2 other(s)
G.R.UDHWANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
