HEMLATABEN MANGALSINH Vs. SHANTABEN CHANDULAL NARSHIDAS

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 defendant/ appellant tenant has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.09.2000, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge,S.D. Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58 of 1995, by which the suit filed by the present respondents-landlords for the decree of eviction is accepted as well as the judgment and order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge & Fast Track Court No.1,Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2000, confirming the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Mr.Jay M.Thakkar, 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.