The Court held that eviction under Section 13(1)(I) is maintainable where the premises were originally let as “open land” and later constructions by the tenant, without the landlord’s permission or municipal approval, do not change its character. The case upholds existing precedent on open land versus constructed premises and clarifies that revisional jurisdiction does not extend to reappreciation of factual findings unless errors of law are shown. This decision serves as binding authority for subordinate courts under the Bombay Rent Act (now Gujarat Rent Act).
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1148/1999 of FIDAHUSEIN MAHMEDALI BALDIWALA Vs GANGARAM SANKALCHAND PRAJAPATIDECD. THRO’ HEIRS & L.R. |
| CNR | GJHC240353891999 |
| Date of Registration | 26-07-1999 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV J. THAKER |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Gujarat; persuasive for courts interpreting Bombay Rent Act/Gujarat Rent Act elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms findings of first appellate court; distinguishes SC decision in Nalanikant Ramadas Gujjar v. Tulsibhai |
| Type of Law | Rent control (Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The property described as No.1(A) had always been let as open land and various rent notes, court decrees, and admissions established this fact. Subsequent temporary/kachchaa constructions without landlord or municipal approval do not alter its essential character as “open land.” Therefore, eviction under Section 13(1)(I) is proper and findings of both trial and appellate courts warrant no interference in revision. Regarding properties 1(B) & 1(C), bona fide requirement was not proven since the partition deed vested title solely in one co-plaintiff whose legal heirs did not prove personal requirement. Revisional powers under Section 29(2) are limited to correction of errors of law and not for reassessment of facts where lower courts have properly appreciated evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Nalanikant Ramadas Gujjar v. Tulsibhai (Supreme Court) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Examination of rent notes, previous decrees, and partition deeds; interpretation of Section 13(1)(I) and Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Act; authorities on open land/temporary construction; limits of revisional jurisdiction |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Landlord sued for eviction of three properties: 1(A) (open land with tenant’s shed), 1(B) and 1(C) (pucca sheds/office/factory shop). The trial court decreed eviction for all. The first appellate court affirmed only as to 1(A) (open land) under Section 13(1)(I), dismissing eviction for 1(B) & 1(C) for want of proved bona fide requirement. Both sides filed revision applications. |
| Citations | 1996 (0) AIJEL SC 18959 (cited and distinguished) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Gujarat under the Bombay Rent Act / Gujarat Rent Act |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts dealing with analogous “open land” questions under rent control statutes |
| Distinguishes | Nalanikant Ramadas Gujjar v. Tulsibhai (Supreme Court) – held not applicable on facts as “open land” nature established from inception |
| Follows | Principle that scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to errors of law, not factual reassessment, under Section 29(2) of the Act |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the original character of leased premises (“open land”) is determined by contemporaneous documents (rent notes, decrees) and not altered by later tenant-erected, unapproved constructions.
- Where only one co-owner or his heirs hold title after partition, only they (not former co-owners) can claim bona fide requirement for eviction.
- Revisional courts under Section 29(2) of the Act cannot reappreciate evidence or revisit factual findings absent an error of law.
- Delays in bringing suit after lapse of construction permissions do not, by themselves, preclude eviction if there is no legal bar to seeking fresh permissions.
- Lawyers should submit specific permissible evidence (including approval status, partition deeds, and personal requirement evidence) when contesting or advancing eviction suits for “open land.”
- Implementation of decrees may be stayed briefly to allow appeal, but mere unimplemented plans do not undermine bona fide requirement where other evidence suffices.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first assessed whether the property (No.1(A)) was “open land.” Relying on multiple contemporaneous rent notes (Exhibits 140, 144, 146, etc.), prior court decrees (HRP Suit 1042/1947), and admissions, the court found that the tenancy was originally for open land, not a constructed property.
- The existence of a kachchaa shed, erected later by the tenant without authorization or municipal approval, did not change the legal character of the property as “open land.”
- The argument that all three tenanted properties should be treated together was rejected, as both documentary and oral evidence consistently described them as separate and independently demisable units.
- On delay/laches (plans approved in 1967, suit filed in 1976), the court held there was no bar to the landlord seeking eviction even if prior building permissions had lapsed, in absence of proof that fresh applications would have been futile.
- Regarding properties 1(B) & 1(C), the court highlighted the effect of the partition deed of 1973: since only Gangaram (plaintiff No.1) and his heirs had title after the partition, evidence of need by other plaintiffs was immaterial. No evidence of bona fide need by Gangaram’s branch was produced; hence, appellate court’s denial of eviction on this ground was correct.
- The court emphasized it would not interfere in revisional jurisdiction with well-supported findings of fact unless an error of law or jurisdiction was shown—none was found here.
- The Supreme Court precedent in Nalanikant Ramadas Gujjar v. Tulsibhai was distinguished because in the present case, the land was undeniably let as open land from inception.
- Implementation of the eviction decree was stayed temporarily to allow the tenant an opportunity to appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Tenant, CRA No. 1148/1999):
- Property 1(A) was not open land at the time of suit, as it contained a kachchaa shed with landlord’s knowledge.
- All three properties were functionally and contractually interconnected and should not be split for eviction.
- Building plans cited by landlord had expired years before the suit—eviction claim on this basis was therefore not genuine.
- There was considerable delay between plan approval and suit.
- Evidence suggested comparative hardship to tenant (including expert report recommending tenant be offered space in new building).
- No new construction had taken place following earlier decrees.
Respondent (Landlord):
- Multiple documents and admissions confirm 1(A) was always let as open land; subsequent constructions by tenant were unauthorized.
- Properties were always distinguishable as separate tenancies, confirmed by rent notes and prior decrees.
- Delay in seeking eviction after building plans lapsed is not a bar; municipal approval for new plans can always be sought.
- For 1(B) & 1(C), claimed family bona fide requirement, challenged appellate court’s dismissal as contrary to oral & documentary evidence.
Defendant (Tenant) – on 1(B) & 1(C):
- After partition, only Gangaram’s branch had any claim or need; neither they nor their heirs proved bona fide requirement.
- Family members of other plaintiffs cannot claim need for property now owned by Gangaram’s heirs.
Factual Background
The dispute involved eviction proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act concerning three properties in Ahmedabad: (1A) open land (with a tenant-erected kachchaa shed), (1B) a pucca shed, and (1C) premises used as an office/factory. The landlord sought eviction under Section 13(1)(I) (for construction of a new building) for 1(A) and under Section 13(1)(g) (bona fide personal requirement) for 1(B) and 1(C). The trial court decreed eviction for all, but the appellate court reversed the decree for 1(B) and 1(C) due to lack of evidence of bona fide requirement following a partition, and confirmed eviction for 1(A) as “open land.” Both sides filed revision applications.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 13(1)(I) of the Bombay Rent Act: Permits eviction where premises consist of open land required by the landlord for erection of a new building. The court interpreted “open land” per contemporaneous rent notes and rejected the tenant’s claim that later, unauthorized constructions convert its character.
- Section 13(1)(g): Permits eviction for the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord. The court required strict proof of personal requirement, holding that after partition, only those with title/possession can establish such requirement.
- Section 29(2): Limits revisional jurisdiction to errors of law. The court reinforced that factual findings, if supported by evidence, cannot be revisited in revision proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Court followed and clarified existing law regarding open land, limits of revisional jurisdiction, and effect of partition on bona fide requirement.
Citations
- 1996 (0) AIJEL SC 18959 – Nalanikant Ramadas Gujjar v. Tulsibhai (cited to explain “open land” determination)
- HRP Suit No.1042 of 1947 (judgment, referenced for historic facts)
- Rent notes Exhibits 140, 144, 146, 182, 104, 186 (relied upon as contemporaneous documents)
- Judgment: Reportable (Approved for reporting: Yes)