A tenant’s failure to clear six months’ arrears within the statutory notice period mandates eviction.

The plaintiff-landlord let a shop to the defendant-tenant under a rent agreement dated 7 November 2001 at Rs. 150 per month.

The tenant claimed that his father had occupied an earlier shop from 1974 and that the present shop was let after the original premises were demolished following an earthquake.

The landlord alleged rent arrears, served statutory notice, and sued for possession after the tenant did not clear the arrears within one month.

The trial court decreed eviction on 30 December 2022, and the appellate court dismissed the tenant’s appeal on 14 August 2026.

The tenant challenged those concurrent decisions under Section 29(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Rent Act”).

In the revision, the tenant accepted that he had not paid within one month of notice and remained in arrears when issues were framed, but argued that he later paid the arrears and was not in default when the decree was passed.

Whether the eviction decree could stand where the tenant failed to clear arrears within one month of statutory notice and remained in arrears when issues were framed, although he later paid before the decree.

Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted interference in revision under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act.

Whether the tenancy created under the 7 November 2001 agreement was outside the protection of the Rent Act by virtue of amended Section 4.

Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act, where rent is payable monthly, there is no dispute about standard rent or permitted increases, rent is in arrears for six months or more, and the tenant neglects to pay within one month after statutory notice, the court must pass a decree for eviction.

Relying on Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani, (1989) 4 SCC 612, and the principle discussed there from Harbanslal Jagmohandas, the Court treated the statutory conditions as requiring eviction once established.

The Court also applied the limited revisional standard under Section 29(2): concurrent findings should not be disturbed absent perversity, egregious error, gross irregularity, or a decision contrary to settled law, relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.

It further referred to amended Section 4(1-A) of the Rent Act concerning premises excluded from the Act.

The tenant’s concessions established that he had not paid within the statutory one-month period and was still in arrears when the issues were framed.

The Court therefore held that subsequent payment, and the absence of arrears by the date of decree, did not undo the consequences of the earlier default under Section 12(3)(a).

It also found that the parties’ written agreement provided for monthly rent, distinguishing the tenant’s contention that rent was accepted cumulatively.

The Court additionally observed that the 2001 agreement created a fresh tenancy after the amendment to Section 4 and that the tenancy was not protected by the Rent Act.

Finally, it found no perversity or gross error in the concurrent factual findings that would justify revisional interference.

Finding no basis to interfere with the lower courts’ decisions, the High Court dismissed the revision application in limine, with no order as to costs.