KASTURBEN PARSOTTAMDASBHARATIBEN PARSHOTTAMDAS Vs. JAGJIVANDAS KASTURCHAND SHAH

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 31.08.2001 passed by learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surendranagar, in Civil Suit No. 244 of 1988 , by which, the suit filed by the present petitioner for decree of eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act is dismissed as well as the judgment and order dated 19.4.2008 passed the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2003 by which the appeal filed by the original plaintiff challenging the decision of the Civil Judge was dismissed. Hence, the present Revision Application.

(2.) THE brief facts emerges from the record of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 244 of 1998 in the court of learned Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar , against the present respondents for decree of eviction on different grounds. The suit was opposed by the respondents-tenants by filing Written Statement at Exhibit-38. The learned Civil Judge after considering the pleadings on record, framed 16 issues at Exhibit-39 and came to the conclusion that the petitioner ­ plaintiff had miserably failed in establishing his case and dismissed the suit. The respondent ­ plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 31.8.2001 by which the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit, preferred a Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2003 and challenged the said decision. The learned Appellate Judge has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya, 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 Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghateshaniya, learned Advocate, has relied upon Kikubhai the decisions of this court in the case of Parshottambhai Patel vs. Babubhai Vallabhbhai Patel, as reported at 2005 (1), GLH 602; in the case of Jayshreeben Vasantkumar Vithlani vs. Manjibhai & Co. and Anr., as reported at 2007(1) GLH 248 and in the case of Bhil Kanji Bhagwan (since dead) through his heirs Laxmiben Kanji and Ors. vs. Bhil Karsan Bijal and Ors., as reported at 2003 (3) GLH 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 decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court are 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.