Appeal Dismissed in Case of Permissive Possession; Mesne Profits Modified
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the decision of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, in the case of Sawaisinh Devisingh Chauhan v. Yashwantsinh Mahansinh Rathod, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant, Yashwantsinh Mahansinh Rathod. The judgment was delivered by Justice J.C. Doshi on July 3, 2026, in First Appeal No. 1775 of 2017.
The dispute involved the possession of a property located at House No. 53, Motera, owned by the plaintiff, Sawaisinh Devisingh Chauhan. The property was initially given to the defendant, a near relative, for a limited period of two years without any rental agreement. Despite the expiry of the agreed period, the defendant continued to occupy the property, leading to legal proceedings initiated by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and mesne profits.
The defendant contended that he was a lawful tenant under the Gujarat Rent Act, 1947, paying Rs. 1500 monthly, and claimed undue influence and coercion regarding his signature on the agreement. However, the High Court found that the property, constructed post-March 31, 2000, was exempt from the Gujarat Rent Act due to its construction date falling after September 5, 2001. This exemption meant the relationship between the parties was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not by the Rent Act.
Justice Doshi observed that the defendant's claims of tenancy were unsupported by any documentary evidence, and his allegation of coercion regarding the signature on the agreement was deemed an afterthought. The court emphasized the importance of documentary proof in claims of possession and cited the Supreme Court's stance that possession without valid, subsisting agreements cannot be protected by the court.
The High Court modified the trial court's order concerning mesne profits, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 5000 per month from December 23, 2011, the date of filing of the suit, rather than from January 2008, as initially ordered by the trial court. The rest of the judgment was affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, with interim relief vacated.
The judgment reiterates that civil courts have jurisdiction in disputes involving properties exempt from rent control laws, highlighting the significance of proper legal documentation in property disputes.
Bottom line:-
The suit property, constructed after the cutoff date specified in the Gujarat Rent Act, 1947, is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and does not fall under the Rent Act's jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Gujarat Rent Act, 1947 Section 4(1A), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6.
