Gujarat HC Upholds Eviction Of Occupants From Senior Citizen’s Property After They Failed To Show Any Right To Stay

The plaintiff, the registered title holder of the suit property, brought a civil suit seeking possession from the defendants. Despite service of notice, the defendants did not appear, and the suit proceeded ex parte.

The Trial Court decreed eviction; the First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal and confirmed the decree.

In the second appeal, the defendants challenged the absence of a formal order to proceed ex parte, the framing of the appellate points for determination, and the eviction decree despite the Trial Court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s allegation of trespass.

Section 100 CPC limits a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed unless, for example, they are perverse, contrary to mandatory law, based on inadmissible evidence, or unsupported by evidence (Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555; Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864).

Order IX Rule 6 CPC concerns proceeding ex parte when a defendant does not appear despite service, while Order XLI Rule 31 CPC requires the appellate court to frame and decide points for determination; the Court assessed the alleged non-compliance in light of whether it caused prejudice.

The Court found that the defendants had been served but neither contested the suit nor explained their absence, while the plaintiff had produced oral and documentary evidence of title. The defendants produced no evidence of a lawful right to occupy the property.

Although the Trial Court did not accept the allegation that they had trespassed, the Court considered the plaintiff’s established ownership and the absence of evidence of a continuing licence sufficient to sustain the eviction decree.

The absence of a formal ex parte order did not, in the circumstances, amount to an egregious error warranting intervention at the second-appeal stage. The appellate points were adequate, and the defendants demonstrated no prejudice from their framing.

Applying Section 100 CPC, the Court found no perversity or other basis to disturb the concurrent findings.

It dismissed the second appeal in limine, confirmed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, and made no order as to costs.