CHANDRAKANT HIMATLAL Vs. HARJIVANDAS K KARELIA DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application (869/68) raises an interesting question relating to the procedure to be followed in recording evidence by the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad functioning as a Court under the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The question in brief is whether in appealable cases the Court should record the oral evidence verbatim or whether a memorandum in English of the substance of the evidence will satisfy the requirements of law.

(2.) The revision application concerns a suit for ejectment filed by the petitioners as landlords against opponent who was admittedly a tenant in the suit premises situated at Ahmedabad. The suit (No. 2726 of 1961) was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad which had under sec. 28 of the Rent Act exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try it. The suit was valued at Rs. 2375/being Rs. 1320/for possession (monthly rent of the premises being Rs. 110.00) and Rs. 1055/for arrears of rent upto the date of the suit. Possession was sought on several grounds some of which were accepted by the trial Court and a decree for eviction was passed on 304-65. The opponent went in appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Bench) to which an appeal lay under sec. 29(1)(a) of the Rent Act. Before the Appellate Bench a point of procedure was raised for the first time on behalf of the appellant-tenant. It appears that the trial Court had recorded oral evidence in English in the form of memorandum of the substance of the evidence. The point of procedure in the appeal was that under the relevant provisions of law the recording of the evidence should have been full and in the regional language of the Court which was Gujarati with a memorandum in English. The contention was that the trial Court had followed the procedure prescribed by rule 5 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Rules) whereas it should have followed the procedure prescribed by rule a as the subject matter of the suit was over Rs. 2 0 That contention was heard as a preliminary point and accepted by the said Appellate Bench. Accordingly the decree was set aside and the matter remanded. The plaintiffs-landlords have come to this Court in revision against that order of remand.

(3.) In this revision application the parties to C.R.A. No. 1194/68 which is pending before this Court have intervened as a similar question arises in that application also. There the suit was for ejectment (No. 1837 of 1962) against two defendants the case being that the original defendant No. 1 was their tenant and the original defendant No. 2 was residing with original defendant No. 1 and was claiming to be a sub-tenant. Possession was claimed on the ground of bona fide requirement. The original defendant No. 1 did not contest. Defendant No. 2 who contested claimed to be a direct tenant of the plaintiffs since 1958. The trial Court rejected the plea of defendant No. 2 (petitioner in the revision application) and accepted the case of the opponents-landlords and decreed the eviction on 3-2-66. The defendant No. 2 went in appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and one of the contentions urged was that the trial Court erred in following the procedure prescribed in rule 5 of the Rent Rules instead of Rule 8. That contention was negatived and it was held that the procedure under rule 5 was the proper procedure to be followed in a suit the value of the subject matter of which did not exceed Rs. 2 0 The other contentions urged were also negatived and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Against that decision this revision application was filed.