ARIFHUSAIN RAFIKHUSAIN SHAIKH Vs. SWALE MOHMED AHMEDHISAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the petitioner who claims to be tenant and possession of rented premises in question has challenged impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.12.2009 passed in Appeal from Order No.23 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order dated 11.05.2009 passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.6 in H.R.P.Suit No.142 of 2009.

(2.) Facts leading to the present Revision Application and chronological events are as under :-

(3.) Mr.Kapadia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as grandfather of the petitioner was tenant of the suit properties / shop in question and on his death father of the petitioner became tenant, therefore, on his death petitioner would become tenant under section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore, both the Courts below have materially erred in refusing to grant injunction as prayed for. It is submitted that whether petitioner has became tenant under section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act or not, is to be considered at the time of trial and therefore, both the Courts below ought to have granted injunction during the pendency of H.R.P.Suit No.142 of 2009. No other submissions have been made.