RAMESH DANCHAND WASWANI Vs. YUSUFBHAI MUKHTAR AMIR VARAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity.

(2.) This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. Civil Application No.434/2011. Particular contention in review was, remand ought to have been to the Trial Court so as not to deny the Appellant/ Tenant right of appeal against that finding under Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for appellant dismissed the review with costs of Rs.5000/ . Challenging both these orders, present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Dani, learned Counsel for appellant / tenant and Shri S.V. Manohar, learned Counsel for respondent / landlord.