PATEL GOPALBHAI KARSHANBHAI Vs. TRIVEDI KANTILAL HARGOVANDAS

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 defendants/appellant - tenant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.02.1998, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kalol in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1983, by which, the decree of eviction has been passed in favour of Original plaintiff-landlord as well as the judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Gandhinagar in Regular Appeal No. 34 of 2004, by which, the appeal preferred by present petitioner/tenant is dismissed.

(2.) Mr. B.D. Karia, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised an important issue with regard to not following the mandatory provision of the Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Paragraph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual, while deciding and delivering the judgment in the appeal. The contention raised by the present petitioner is that the Appellate Court has not followed the mandatory provisions of law and had not framed the points for determination and submitted that by deciding the appeal, the Appellate Court has raised only two issues which are not in consonance with the above facts.

(3.) Mr. Karia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has further submitted that it is also amply clear from Paragraph 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual that "the appellate court should frame suitable points for determination in appeals in accordance with the same principles on which issues are framed in the Trial Court.