ARVINDBHAI DHANJIBHAI JOBANPUTRA Vs. VIJAYKUMAR GAURISHANKAR THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act" for short), the original plaintiff/respondent'landlord has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court,Veraval, allowing Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 1999 (Old No.75 of 1996) and has prayed that the judgment and decree dated 30.3.1996, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Veraval, in Regular Civil Suit No.235 of 1981, evicting the defendant ' tenant from suit premises be restored and decree of eviction be confirmed.

(2.) Since the facts of the case are exhaustively dealt with by the courts below, the same are not narrated in the present judgment passed by this Court in this Revision Application. The petitioner herein instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 1981, in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge (JD), Veraval, and has prayed a decree of eviction against the defendant 'tenant from the suit premises. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the said suit and passed an eviction decree dated 30.3.1996 against the defendant-tenant. Being aggrieved, the defendant'tenant preferred an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 1999 (Old No.75 of 1996), before the District Court, Veraval. The said appeal came to be allowed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Veraval, by judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 and the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioner ' landlord preferred the present Revision Application.

(3.) Mr. S.M. Shah, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has raised the contention with regard to the manner in which the lower Appellate Court has disposed of the appeal by writing a judgment contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for short) as well as the Bombay Civil Manual. He submitted that the lower Appellate Court has not framed any point for determination in accordance with Order 41 Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 as well as Paragraph No.414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. He has further submitted that it is a settled legal position that the first appeal has to be decided strictly in adherence with the provisions contained in Order 41, Rules 31 of the Code. It is further submitted that the lower Appellate Court, being the first appellate court, must give reasons for its decision on each point independently. Lastly, it is submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 of Order 41 as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual.