BABULAL @ RASIKLAL KANJI SHAH Vs. ANILKUMAR J MAVADIA

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/appellant landlord has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.02.2006, passed by the Additional Judge, Small Cuase Court, Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1994 by which the suit filed by the present petitioner for eviction under the provisions of Rent Act is dismissed as well as the judgment and order dated 29th June, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge & Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Regular Appeal No. 72 of 2006, by which, the appeal preferred by present petitioner is dismissed.

(2.) MR . A.R. Thacker, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised an important issue with regard to not following the mandatory previsions of the Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Paragaph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual which is mandatory in nature for the first Appellate Court to deal with 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.) I have heard learned Advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.H. Nangesh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is apparent from the main grounds, on which the impugned judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court has been assailed, that the same does not meet with the requirements of the Order 41 as well as Paragarph No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual. The lower appellate court has formulated two points for determination, which are reproduced as under: