AJITSINH BABUBHAI JADAV Vs. WADHWAN MAHAJAN PANJARAPOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ), the original defendant respondent who is the occupier of small business premises belonged to the plaintiffs respondents herein, have challenged the judgement and order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No. 2, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2003, by which, the appeal preferred by the present respondents for ejectment and possession of the suit premises came to be allowed and the judgement and order dated 12.9.2003 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1991 (re-numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 233 of 1999), which was filed by the trustees, for ejectment and possession of the suit premises was dismissed.

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

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.Umesh A. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court. In support of his contention, Mr.Umesh A. Trivedi, learned advocate has relied upon the judgments of Kikubhai Pashottambhai Patel Vs.Babubhai Vallabhbhai Patel, reported in 2005(1) G.L.H.602, Jayshreeben Vasantkumar Vithlani Vs. Manjibhai and Company and another, reported in 2007(1) G.L.H.248 and Bhil Kanji Bhagwan (since dead) through his heirs Laxmiben Kanji and others Vs. Bhil Karsan Bijal and others, reported in 2003(3) G.L.H.2080 and submitted that if the appellate Court has discussed all the points and arguments in the body of the judgments, no interference is called for in the matter either in the second Appeal or in the Revisional jurisdiction provided under the Bombay Rent Act. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court has considered the case on merits and the judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court is just, legal and proper and the same would not stand vitiated merely because points of determination have not been formulated by the lower Appellate Court and, therefore, there is no need to remand the case for fresh consideration to the first Appellate Court.