Protection under Rent Act is unavailable for premises constructed after September 2001 or held via expired gratuitous license.

The plaintiff (respondent) owner of House No. 53, Motera, allowed the defendant (appellant), a near relative, to occupy the suit property for two years starting in 2005 via a written agreement.

The property was constructed and possession taken by the owner in 2004.

After the expiry of the two-year period in 2007, the defendant refused to vacate, initially filing a suit (RCS 293/2008) seeking protection from eviction without due process.

The plaintiff then filed Special Civil Suit No. 403 of 2011 for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the defendant's possession illegal and ordering eviction plus mesne profits of ₹5,000 per month from January 2008.

The defendant appealed, claiming he was a tenant protected under the Rent Act and that his signature on the agreement was obtained under coercion.

1. Whether the defendant is a tenant protected under the Gujarat Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rent Control Act, 1947.

2. Whether the relationship between the parties is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or a private license agreement.

3. Whether the Trial Court had the inherent jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

4. Whether the mesne profits awarded from January 2008 were legally sustainable.

Section 4(1A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1947, which exempts premises constructed on or after September 5, 2001, from the operation of the Rent Act.

The precedent Jamnadas Mangaldas Sharma v. Rajeshkumar Somabhai Parekh [2019 JX(Guj) 480], confirming that the Rent Act does not apply to such new constructions.

The principles of permissive possession and "due process" from Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria [(2012) 5 SCC 370], holding that a person without a valid subsisting agreement cannot claim protection against the true owner.

The Court determined that since the suit property was constructed in 2004, it is exempt from the Rent Act under Section 4(1A); thus, the Civil Court had proper jurisdiction.

Regarding the agreement (Exhibit 40), the defendant admitted his signature but alleged coercion (a threat of suicide). The Court rejected this as an "afterthought" because the allegation was not pleaded in the written statement or the previous 2008 suit.

Exhibit 40 was identified as a gratuitous leave and license agreement for a limited period. Following the expiry of the two-year term, the defendant’s status became that of a licensee whose right to occupy had terminated.

Applying Maria Margarida, the Court found that the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence (rent receipts or lease deeds) to substantiate a lawful tenancy, rendering his possession illegal.

The Court noted a technical error regarding mesne profits, as the plaintiff only claimed them from the date of the suit (December 23, 2011), not from January 2008.

The appeal was partly allowed only to modify the mesne profits: the defendant is ordered to pay ₹5,000 per month from the date of the suit (23/12/2011) until the delivery of possession, instead of from January 2008. All other directions, including the perpetual injunction and the order to hand over vacant possession, were confirmed.