High Court of Gujarat
R/Second Appeal No. 427 of 2026 (C/SA/427/2026, arising out of Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2021 and Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2015)
September 11, 2026
Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat.
Arun Harichand Sharma & Anr. (Appellants / Original Defendants) vs. The Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited (Respondent / Original Plaintiff).
"Disclaimer: This article is a simplified summary of the court judgment prepared for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official legal document. For complete facts and full context, please refer to the official judgment attached below."
- What Was the Case About: The plaintiff (The Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited) granted a Leave and License Agreement for an office space (Office No. 107 in Sindhu-II) to defendant No. 1 (Arun Harichand Sharma) for an 11-month period. When defendant No. 1 defaulted on regular license fees and illegally sublet the office to defendant No. 2 without permission, the owner issued a legal notice terminating the license and demanding back possession. After the trial court initially dismissed the owner's suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and ordered eviction, leading the occupants to file a second appeal in the High Court.
- Key Arguments: The occupants argued that the trial court was right to dismiss the suit due to inconsistencies regarding the agreement date, and claimed defendant No. 1 was willing to pay the license fee [7, 7.1]. The property owner argued that defendant No. 1 broke his undertaking to pay regular fees, sublet the property unlawfully, and had no legal right to stay once the license was terminated.
- What Did the Court Decide: The Gujarat High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the First Appellate Court's decree ordering the occupants to hand over possession and pay usage charges. The Court held that once a leave and license period expires or is validly terminated by notice, the licensee has no right to remain on the property, especially when no counterclaim for agreement renewal was filed. Additionally, the Court ruled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, High Courts cannot re-evaluate factual evidence or overturn lower appellate court factual findings without a substantial question of law.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment offers essential clarity for property owners and commercial tenants regarding rental and license agreements. It establishes that occupants cannot remain on a property indefinitely or hand it over to unauthorized third parties once their legal license has ended or been cancelled for non-payment. For everyday citizens renting out shops or offices, it confirms that courts will protect property owners' rights to recover possession promptly after validly terminating a license.
Applicable Laws and Sections
- Acts Applicable: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- Key Sections:
- Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Limits High Court second appeals strictly to substantial questions of law and prevents re-opening factual findings made by the first appellate court.
- Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (cited in judicial precedent): Sets out rules for terminating leases or property licenses by serving a formal legal notice on the occupant.
- Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (cited in judicial precedent): Allows courts to pass immediate eviction decrees when the licensor-licensee relationship and termination notice are established.