The Gujarat High Court has upheld an eviction decree against a man who continued occupying his relative's residential property long after a two-year permission to stay had ended. While confirming the trial court's findings that the occupant had no legal right to remain in possession, the Court modified the order relating to mesne profits by directing that compensation would be payable from the date of filing of the suit instead of an earlier date.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned House No. 53 at Motera, Gandhinagar, owned by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, a close relative who was nearing retirement and searching for accommodation, was allowed to occupy the house in 2005 without paying rent. The arrangement was recorded through a written agreement permitting him to stay for two years.
After the agreed period ended, the defendant did not vacate the property. Instead, he filed a civil suit seeking protection from eviction except through due process of law. The plaintiff thereafter instituted a suit seeking recovery of possession, a permanent injunction, and mesne profits.
The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's continued possession was unlawful. Challenging that decree, the defendant approached the High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice J. C. Doshi examined whether the defendant could claim protection either as a tenant under the Gujarat Rent Act or as a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act.
The Court found that the property had been constructed after the amendment to the Rent Act and therefore fell outside the Act's protection. Consequently, the dispute was rightly decided by the civil court.
The Court also rejected the defendant's claim that he was a tenant paying monthly rent of ₹1,500. It noted that no documentary evidence such as rent receipts, tenancy agreement or lease deed had been produced to support that assertion.
The defendant had argued that his signature on the 2005 agreement had been obtained through coercion and undue influence. During evidence, he additionally alleged that the plaintiff had threatened to commit suicide unless he signed the document.
Rejecting this contention, the Court observed,
"Such a contention, raised belatedly and unsupported by any prior pleading or contemporaneous document, is a hollow statement and cannot be accepted."
The Court noted that the allegation of a suicide threat did not appear either in the written statement or in the earlier litigation initiated by the defendant, making it an afterthought.
The High Court further held that the agreement clearly reflected a leave-and-licence arrangement under which the defendant was permitted to occupy the house only for a limited period without paying rent.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, the Court reiterated that a person seeking protection of possession must establish a valid and subsisting legal right through appropriate documents. Mere oral claims, without documentary support, were insufficient.
The Court also rejected the argument that the defendant should not suffer because his previous lawyer had inadequately conducted the trial. It found no material to justify setting aside the decree on that ground.
Decision
Partly allowing the appeal, the Gujarat High Court modified only the direction relating to mesne profits. Instead of directing payment from January 2008, the Court held that the defendant would be liable to pay ₹5,000 per month from 23 December 2011, the date on which the suit was instituted, until vacant and peaceful possession is handed over to the plaintiff.
The remainder of the trial court's judgment, including the declaration that the defendant's possession was unauthorized, the direction to vacate the property, and the permanent injunction against creating third-party rights, was affirmed. The Court also suspended the operation of its judgment for four weeks to enable the appellant to approach a higher court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sawaisinh Devisingh Chauhan v. Yashwantsinh Mahansinh Rathod
Case Number: R/First Appeal No. 1775 of 2017
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Decision Date: 3 July 2026
