SAROJBEN Vs. RAMJI MANDIR TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated 4th October, 2001 of the learned Single .judge allowing Special Civil Application Nos.4280 to 4294 of 2001 by which, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the common order dated 25th January, 2001 and another order dated 19th March. 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector. Nadiad under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rules Control Act, 1947 [for short "Bombay Rent Act"] permitting the appellants to get electricity supply in the premises occupied by the appellants and belonging to the respondents.

(2.) . The facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under :

(3.) Mr. Murali Devnani. learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when the appellants had gone with the specific case before the Deputy Collector under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act that the appellants are tenants of (the respective premises and the Deputy Collector as well s as the learned Asst. Judge have accepted the appellants' case, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with concurrent orders passed by the authority and the Court below, when the said orders o did not suffer from any jurisdictional error whatsoever. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Chainar Rantjibhai Khimabhai v. Mirza Murmahmmadbhai Amirbhai and another, 2000 [3] GLR 2658 laying down that for granting application under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act, what the Collector is required to see is not whether the applicant has satisfactorily established that he is a tenant, but whether o the applicant has priina facie established that he is a tenant.