Eviction decree sustained for non-user, unauthorized permanent construction, and non-payment of monthly rent.

The respondent (landlord) filed two eviction suits against the petitioner (tenant) regarding premises in Danilimda, Ahmedabad, let for a screen-printing business

H.R.P. Suit No. 370/2017 was filed on grounds of non-user for over six months, unauthorized permanent construction, and subletting

H.R.P. Suit No. 236/2018 was filed for arrears of rent from 2005 to 2018

The tenant contended that he owned the superstructure, that construction was necessary repairs following damage by a fallen tree, and that rent had been deposited in a previous suit

The Trial Court and the Appellate Bench both decreed eviction on grounds of non-user, unauthorized construction, and arrears of rent

1. Whether the tenant failed to use the premises for the purpose let for a continuous period of six months preceding the suit without reasonable cause under Section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act.

2. Whether the tenant breached the terms of the tenancy and Section 13(1)(b) by erecting a permanent structure without the landlord's written consent.

3. Whether the case is governed by Section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) regarding arrears of rent and if the eviction decree was validly passed.

The court applied Section 12(3)(a) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which mandates an eviction decree if rent is payable monthly, undisputed, in arrears for six months, and not paid within one month of notice

Sections 13(1)(a), (b), and (k) were applied regarding breaches of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, unauthorized permanent structures, and non-user without reasonable cause

The court relied on the precedent Hotel Kings v. Sara Farhan Lukmani (2007) 1 SCC 202, establishing that even if a tenant is liable for municipal taxes, if the lease specifies monthly rent, the case is governed by Section 12(3)(a) rather than 12(3)(b)

Revisional limits were guided by Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78

Regarding non-user, the court found the landlord discharged the initial burden as the Court Commissioner’s report (Exh. 49) showed the premises were locked and the tenant lacked keys

The tenant's "reasonable cause"—damage by a fallen tree—was rejected because the Commissioner found no traces of a fallen tree, and the tenant failed to produce electricity bills or business receipts for 2016-2018

Regarding unauthorized construction, the court held that Conditions 3 and 8 of the Rent Note (Exh. 60) explicitly required the landlord's prior permission for any new construction, which the tenant admittedly bypassed, triggering Section 13(1)(b)

On arrears, the court rejected the tenant's argument that Section 12(3)(b) applied due to his liability for municipal taxes. Applying Hotel Kings, the court found that since the rent of Rs. 270 was payable monthly, Section 12(3)(a) applied

The tenant’s failure to pay within 30 days of the statutory notice (Exh. 73) necessitated an eviction decree, regardless of subsequent deposits during trial

The High Court dismissed the Revision Applications and confirmed the eviction decrees

The court concluded that there was no "miscarriage of justice" or "perversity" in the concurrent findings of the lower courts that would warrant interference under its limited revisional jurisdiction. Rule discharged.