IBRAHIM HAJI KARIM PINJARA (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED VALLABHDAS KURJIBHAI DAVADA, SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition, under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act ), the original plaintiff respondent challenged the judgement and order, dated 10.02.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court (Main), Gondal Camp at Dhoraji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002, by which, the appeal filed by the present respondent tenant is allowed and the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set aside.

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

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned advocate for Mr.Satyam Chhaya, 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.K.M.Antani, learned advocate for Mr.Satyam Chhaya, learned Advocate has relied upon the judgments of Kikubhai Pashottambhai Patel Vs.Babubhai Vallabhbhai Patel, 2005(1) G.L.H.602, Jayshreeben Vasantkumar Vithlani Vs. Manjibhai and Company and another, 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, 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.