NATVARLAL DWARKADAS SONI Vs. MUKESH SANALAL SHIKLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision by the original defendant No.1 arises out of judgment and order dated 2-2-2007 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.125 of 2006 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.9, Vadodara, whereby the learned Judge, while allowing the appeal of the original plaintiff, quashed and set aside the order dated 13-6-2006 passed below Exs.5 and 28 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.51 of 2006 and the defendant No.1 was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law till the decision of the suit.

(2.) The facts in short are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff stating that he is the tenant on the ground floor of the property bearing Tikka No.1/2 and City Survey No.111/2 and Municipal Census No.296-562 consisting of two rooms and Otta on a monthly rent of Rs.40/- let to the deceased uncle-Nathabhai Motibhai of the plaintiff for doing business of repairing key and umbrella. It was contended that upon the death of other brothers of Nathabhai Motibhai, plaintiff became tenant being legal heirs. Although the defendants purchased the suit property on 27-12-1999 with sitting tenant, they filed Rent Suit No.301 of 2000 to recover possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff which was withdrawn. Since the defendants were trying to take possession of the suit property illegally, he filed Rent Suit No.51 of 2006 in the Small Causes Court, Vadodara, along with an application at Ex.5 for injunction. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 also filed counter injunction application at Ex.28. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara, vide order dated 13-6-2006 allowed the Counter Injunction Application Ex.28 and partly allowed the application Ex.5 qua Otta portion of the suit property only. Being aggrieved therewith, the original plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.125 of 2006 in the District Court, Vadodara. However, the said appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2-2-2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.9, Vadodara. Hence, the present revision by the original defendant No.1.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a reasonable period by continuing the protection granted earlier till disposal of the suit, ends of justice would be met to which, both the parties have no objection.