(1.) THE present revision application has been filed by the petitioners-original defendants for the prayer that the decree passed in H.R.P. Suit No. 2396/83 by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dated 30.6.94 and also the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 83/94 dated 1.9.2000 confirming the said judgment and decree may be quashed and set aside on the grounds set out in the memo of this revision application, inter alia, that both the courts have committed an error in appreciating the evidence. It is also contended that both the courts have failed to consider the fact that both the defendants were residing along with the father as members of joint family in the suit premises. THErefore, a specific contention referring to sec. 5(11)(c)(i) that the tenancy right has been transmitted to the defendants has not been appreciated properly which has led to miscarriage of justice.
(2.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gohil referred to both the judgments and also the grounds in the memo of this application, particularly ground (C) and submitted that a specific contention was raised that the applicants were residing in a joint family which has not been considered. Similarly he referred to ground (D) and submitted that the provisions of sec. 5(11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act providing for transmission of the tenancy of a member of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death has not been appreciated. For that purpose learned advocate Mr. Gohil referred to exh. 73 which is an identity card which has been discussed in Para 13 of the judgment of the trial court.
(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gohil submitted that both the courts have failed to consider this aspect. He has also referred to the record and submitted that as both the courts have committed a grave error in appreciating this aspect and the provisions of sec. 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act, the present revision application may be allowed.