R A MASKATI Vs. FAKIRCHAND MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 15 civil revision applications are preferred by the original plaintiffs-landlords under sec. 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act because both the trial court i. e. the court of Small Causes Ahmedabad in the respective suits and the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in the respective appeals held that the plaintiffs suits for possession under sec. 13(1)(hh) of the rented premises from the respective defendant tenant were not competent because as required under sec. 13 (3A) and 13(3B) of the Bombay Rent Act the certificate of the Tribunal constituted under sec. 13(3B) was not produced at the time of institution of those suits or even thereafter. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal of those suits the common plaintiffs of those 15 suits and therefore the common petitioners in these 15 civil revision applications have filed these 15 revision applications.

(2.) The Special Civil Application in question has been filed by those petitioners who were the plaintiffs in those 15 suits and the respondents are the State of Gujarat and the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under sec. 13(3B) of the Bombay Rent Act. This petition is necessitated because the Tribunal which is none other than the Housing Commissioner of the Gujarat Housing Board appointed as the Tribunal by the State Govt. under sec. 13(3B) of the Rent Act refused to grant the certificates prayed for on the ground that according to the Tribunal it could issue certificates under sec. 13(3A) and 13(3B) only in respect of residential premises. The petitioners that is the landlords have therefore sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the applications of the petitioners for a certificate even in respect of the commercial premises.

(3.) As far as the 15 revision applications are concerned they are being rejected be me because I confirm the view of the courts below that the procurement of a certificate from the Tribunal is mandatory for the purpose of instituting suits under sec. 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act and that having not been done in these cases the suits were rightly dismissed by the courts below. 30 rule is discharged in all these 15 revision applications with no order as to costs.