(1.) Petitioner Sukhlal Bhivsan Dhobi (original Defendant) filed the present Revision against Respondents (original Plaintiffs D.H.) being aggrieved by order below Exhibit 21 passed in Regular Darkhast No.55 of 2004 by the trial Court, dated 15th April, 2005. Petitioner Defendant (J.D.) had filed application under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C." in brief) and raised objection to the execution on two grounds. One ground raised was that the coowner of the suit premises, Sanjay Sadashiv Sangale expired leaving behind his widow Megha and two sons and one daughter, but the sons were not made parties and so the decree was a nullity. Other ground raised was that as per Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "Maharashtra Rent Act"), Civil Judge,(Junior Division) and where no Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) is functioning then Civil Judge, (Senior Division) is empowered to entertain and try the suit. In the present matter, decree was passed by Joint Civil Judge,(Junior Division) in Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 2000 and thus the same was without jurisdiction.
(2.) The trial Court heard both the sides and by reasoned order, rejected the application objecting the execution of decree in Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 2000.
(3.) When this Revision came up for hearing, the counsel for Respondents did not appear or argue the matter. However the learned counsel for Petitioner J.D. has argued the same. The learned counsel did not make submissions regarding the point which was raised in the trial Court regarding non joining of sons of deceased coowner Sanjay Sangle. Even otherwise, widow of the co owner was already on record and the trial Court rejected the contention in this regard, observing that the mother and natural guardian of the minor children was party to the suit and it could not be said that decree was not executable. The point has not been pursued and I find no reason to interfere on this count.