SUDAMA GOKUL Vs. DILIPBHAI SHANKERBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the original defendant/appellant has challenged the order dated 17/11/2000 passed below Exh 39, being compromise purshis in H.R.P. Civil Suit No. 798/2006 as well as the judgment and order passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad dated 20/2/2007 in Civil Appeal No. 74/2003, by which the order recorded by the Trial Court below exh 39 � compromise purshis has been confirmed.

(2.) THE brief facts emerges from the record are as under:

(3.) MR . Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that applicant had sufficient material to establish that he was not in Ahmedabad when the impugned compromise was entered into between the parties and under pressure, his son had put his signature. In support of his submission, he had produced two documents along with an application Exh 26 before the Appellate Court, by which he had established that he was present at village Putri of U.P. State.