HEIRS OF DECEASED SULEMAN KARIMA SUNKA, JAHERABEN(TAHERA) SULEMAN SUNKA W/O BASIR MAMAD BHAMBHANI vs YUNUSBHAI YUNUFBHAI AFINI

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 510 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 510 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECEASED SULEMAN KARIMA SUNKA,
JAHERABEN(TAHERA) SULEMAN SUNKA W/O BASIR MAMAD
BHAMBHANI & ORS.
Versus
YUNUSBHAI YUNUFBHAI AFINI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BAKUL S PANCHAL(3676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS MANSI S PANCHAL(12033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. VIPUL SAVDAS REVDARIYA(14299) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 16/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Bakul S. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioners
and Mr. Digant Kakkad, learned advocate with Mr. Vipul Savdas
Revdariya, learned advocate for the respondent - Caveator.
2. This revision application is filed under Section 29(2) of the The
Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
short “the Rent Act” ) against the judgment dated 09.09.2026 passed
by Additional District Judge, Porbandar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29
of 2025, whereby it has confirmed the judgment and eviction decree
passed by Trial Court dated 28.02.2025 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.
123 of 2021.
3. The petitioners herein are original defendants - tenant and
respondent herein is original plaintiff – landlord. For the sake of
convenience and brevity, they will now be referred as per their original
status in the suit proceedings.
4. The landlord instituted an eviction suit being Regular Civil Suit
No.123 of 2021 against the tenant on two grounds that tenant has
erected permanent structure in the rented premises without his written
permission, and tenant has acquired an alternate suitable
accommodation. The suit was contested by the tenant. The Trial Court
framed necessary issues and upon appreciation of evidence, accepted
the second ground for passing the eviction decree, i.e., the tenant
acquired alternate suitable accommodation. It is an undisputed fact that
the rented premises is a residential property.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and eviction decree passed by the Trial Court, the tenant preferred the
appeal before the Appellate Court. After hearing and re-appreciation of
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
evidence on record, the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and
decree dated 09.09.2026 dismissed the appeal. Thus, against the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below against the tenant,
they are before this Court by way of this revision application.
6. Mr. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioners - tenants, would
submit that tenant is residing in the suit premises since long and never
committed any breach of terms of tenancy. It is submitted that landlord
failed to prove on record that there is any permanent construction
erected by the tenant, and as such, the Courts below have categorically
observed by recording the finding that landlord is unable to prove on
record that any permanent construction is erected by the tenant.
6.1. It is further submitted that landlord also failed to prove that
tenant has acquired any alternate suitable accommodation. It is further
submitted that the Power of Attorney of plaintiff was examined before
the Trial Court who has no personal knowledge about any of the facts
pleaded in the plaint, and thereby, the landlord failed to prove his case,
and as such, the Courts below have committed gross error of law by
passing an eviction decree against the tenant.
6.2. Mr. Panchal, learned advocate, would further submit that
original plaintiff is a purchaser and not the original landlord, and as
such, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by original owner
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
is a subject matter of Civil Suit filed by the petitioner - tenant, inasmuch
as the sale deed is fraudulently obtained.
6.3. Making the above submissions, Mr. Panchal, learned advocate
for the petitioners - tenants, would request this Court to entertain this
revision application.
7. Per contra , Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate for the respondent -
landlord, has vehemently opposed this application contending, inter
alia that this Court should not exercise its revisional jurisdiction as
findings of fact recorded by Courts below are neither perverse nor
grossly erroneous.
7.1. It is submitted that there is a clear admission on the part of the
tenant during his cross-examination that he has acquired a residential
premises. It is also submitted that both the Courts below have recorded
a specific finding of fact on the basis of such admission on the part of
the tenant that he has acquired suitable accommodation which consists
of five rooms, whereas the rented premises consists of four rooms.
7.2. Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate, would further submit that as
per settled position of law, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence
on record and interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts
below unless it is so perverse and grossly erroneous.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
7.3. Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate, would further submit that so
far the title of the landlord is concern, the tenant cannot question such
title and as on date, the respondent-plaintiff-landlord is holding title
document in his favour, i.e., registered sale deed. It is submitted that
Rent Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title.
7.4. To buttress his arguments, Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate
would rely upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shamjibhai
Bhudarbhai Vs. Tidiben Harjibhai Naranbhai Parmar
reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-HC 254092 : Civil Revision Application
No.265/2026.
7.5. Making the above submissions, Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate
would request this Court to dismiss the revision application.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
on perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts
below as well as the other documents including the copy of the evidence
submitted with this revision application, prima facie, it appears that the
tenant is facing decree of eviction on the ground that the tenant
acquired suitable accommodation and considering provisions of Section
13(1)( l ) of the Rent Act, in a case of such nature, he is required to be
evicted. This Revision Application is filed by the tenant against the
concurrent finding of fact recorded against him by the Courts below
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
while passing and confirming the eviction decree.
9. So far as acquisition of the residential property by the tenant is
concerned, there is an admission of the said fact during his cross-
examination which is so recorded and referred by the Trial Court in its
impugned judgement (para-12). Even upon re-appreciation of the
evidence also, the Appellate Court has categorically observed that there
is an admission on the part of the defendant - tenant in relation to
acquiring suitable accommodation by him.
10. It is settled position of law that this Court cannot re-appreciate
the finding of fact unless it is perverse or grossly erroneous. Not to be
repetitive and to reiterate what has been observed by the Courts below, I
would like to only refer to few passages of the Appellate Court’s
judgement, whereby the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court
in regards to establishing the ingredients of Section 13(1)(l) of the Rent
Act, which read thus:
“10. The Bombay High Court in Madhukar v. Smt.
Satyabhamabai, 1980 BCR 182, as subsequently considered in the
later authorities, held that there cannot be an inflexible general
rule regarding suitability and the question has to be determined
on the facts and circumstances of each case. The emphasis under
Section 13(1)(l) is on suitability of the alternative accommodation.
Therefore, it is not the mere fact of acquisition in isolation which
is decisive; rather, the Court has to consider the nature and
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
circumstances of the alternative premises and whether they
constitute suitable accommodation for the tenant. In the present
case, however, the defendant has himself admitted the purchase
of another property. Significantly, the defendant has not
established by cogent evidence that the property so acquired is
unsuitable for his residence. The defendant, being the person
who has acquired the alternative premises and being in the best
position to explain its alleged unsuitability, was required to place
the relevant facts before the Court if he sought to avoid the
statutory consequence of Section 13(1)(l). The evidence on
record, therefore, has to be considered not merely from the
standpoint of the plaintiff's assertion but also from the standpoint
of the defendant's own admission and failure to establish any
circumstance making the alternative premises unsuitable.
11. The admission made by the defendant in cross- examination
is of considerable significance. The defendant has unequivocally
admitted that he has purchased another property. Such
admission is substantive evidence against the party making it
and was rightly taken into consideration by the learned Trial
Court . The Gujarat High Court in Vishnubhai Natverlal Barot v.
Manharlal Muljibhai Barot, Civil Revision Application No.43 of
2010, decided on 07.04.2010 by M.R. Shah, J., considered a case
under Section 13(1)(l) where the tenants had acquired alternative
accommodation. The Court noted that the alternative
accommodation was larger than the premises occupied by the
tenants and upheld the eviction decree. The Court found no
ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts
below. The principle emerging from the said decision is
particularly relevant here: once acquisition of alternative
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
accommodation is established, the Court must examine its
suitability on the evidence. Where the tenant fails to establish any
legally sustainable reason why the acquired premises cannot
serve as suitable accommodation, the statutory ground for
eviction can be made out.
12.The facts of the present case are even more significant because
the admission regarding acquisition has emanated from the
defendant himself. The appellant has contended that the plaintiff
would not suffer any hardship if the defendant is permitted to
continue in possession. The said contention cannot be accepted in
the manner in which it is urged. The ground under Section 13(1)
(l) is founded upon the tenant's acquisition of suitable
alternative accommodation. It is distinct from a ground based
upon the landlord's personal requirement under Section 13(1)
(g). Therefore, the appellant cannot defeat a claim under Section
13(1)(l) merely by contending that the plaintiff has failed to
establish comparative hardship or that the plaintiff can continue
without the suit premises. Once the statutory ingredients of
Section 13(1)(l) are established on the evidence, the landlord's
claim cannot be rejected merely because the tenant asserts that
the landlord could continue without obtaining possession.The plea
of “no hardship to the plaintiff”, therefore, does not answer the
statutory ground pleaded and proved by the plaintiff under Section
13(1)(l).”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. So far as aspect of the challenge of the sale deed is concerned, this
Court is not required to go into such aspect. It is settled position of law
and as per Section 29A of the Rent Act, that Rent Court has no
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
jurisdiction to decide the issue of title. [see: Shamjibhai
Bhudarbhai (supra) ]. Moreover, the respondent-plaintiff-landlord is
title holder as original owner-landlord executed registered sale deed in
his favour, thereby as on date he is true owner of the rented premises. It
is equally well settled that registered sale deed carries with it a
formidable presumption of its validity and genuineness. [See -
Hemalatha (D) By Lrs. Vs. Tukaram (D) By Lrs . reported in
2026 (0) AIR (SC) 615]. Even though the tenant filed the suit against
landlord whereby challenged the sale deed, unless its decreed, this Court
cannot accept any plea of the tenant that eviction decree passed by the
Courts below is bad in law. It also appears that such plea never pressed
into service before the Courts below as no such issue was framed by the
trial Court.
12. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and having not found any gross error of law committed by the
Courts below while passing eviction decree against the tenant, I am of
the considered view that no case is made out by the tenant to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below against
them, which are neither found perverse nor grossly erroneous.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgement and eviction decree. [See- Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh - (2014) 9 SCC 78].
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026

C/CRA/510/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240735702026)
13. At this juncture, Mr. Panchal, learned advocate for the petitioner,
would request this Court to suspend this order for some time as
petitioners are desirous to approach the Higher Forum. Since this Court
is not entertaining the revision application rather going to dismiss it in
limine , the prayer is hereby refused.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, this revision
application is found devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed in
limine. No order as to costs.
15. As a sequel, connected Civil Application is also disposed of
accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 11:41:04 IST 2026