PARVATIBEN DEVSHIBHAI RAIYANI Vs. NARSHIDAS MOHANLAL RATHOD

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 (for short the Rent Act ), the petitioners herein original plaintiffs landlord have challenged the judgement and order dated 23/10/1991 passed by learned Second Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Gondal in Regular Civil Suit No.239 of 1985, by which, the suit filed by them for decree of eviction on several grounds, came to be dismissed as well as judgement and order dated 17/06/2009 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Gondal in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 1992, by which, the appeal filed by the present petitioners challenging the dismissal of the suit, is dismissed.

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

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.Sandeep Bhatt, 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.Sandeep Bhatt, 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.