JANARDHAN NAGO PATIL Vs. RAMANAND RAMDAS MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the owner of the suit property. Defendant is a tenant therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Bombay Rent Act ). The trial Court framed as many as 12 issues. The trial Court held all the issues against the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not entitled to possession. In view thereof, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal in the District Court, Thane. By a judgment and order dated 9/01/1990 the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Thane dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first appellate court did not apply its mind to the facts in controversy at all. The learned Judge did not even frame the necessary point for determination regarding the grounds on which possession was claimed by the respondent. The learned appellate court framed only two points for consideration which are extracted below : 1. Whether the trial Judge rightly has decreed the suit? 2. What order?

(3.) IN the case of Anita Baretto v. Abdul Wahid Santosh! this court has criticised the practice followed by the district court in not framing all the necessary points for determination. The court noted that several times it is found that the appellate courts do not frame points for determination in the following manner :