GANGABAI TOKARSY Vs. GAURISHANKAR CHHINTARMAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application arises out of suit filed by the a petitioners against the Respondent for eviction on three grounds - (a) arrears of rent for more than six months, (2) alterations in the premises without the permission of the landlord and (3)- for non = payment of water charges. The case is governed by the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 to which we will refer as the Rent Act. The Defendants - Opponent resisted the eviction and one of the contentions was that the notice to quit was bad in law. The learned trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the notice was bad in law. He also rejected the other contentions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed under S,. 29 of the Act. The learned appealed under S. 29 of under O. 41 R. 11 of the civil Procedure Code Summarily without assigning any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the appeal. This revision application comes before the against this order.

(2.) IT is very regrettable that a revision application should take almost 5 years for being heard in such petty that a matter. One only wonders at the patience of the litigants who must be seriously affected by the delays of the litigation. The main ground urged to by Mr. Walavilkar is that the learned Judges while rejecting his appeal summarily do not give any reasons whatsoever for the same while they were bound to give on the other hand it is contended for the a opponent that it is not necessary for the appellate Bench to given reasons while rejecting an appeal. The question is of some importance and therefore it was ordered to be heard by a Bench.

(3.) ORDER 41. R. 11 which deals with the dismissal of appeals at the stage of admission does not given requires that the appellate court should give reasons while dismissing an appeal summarily but the High Court has under the High Court the Act framed circulars - Civil Circular 51 of 1890 of by which a subordinate court dismissing appeal summarily is required to give reasons for the same. The civil procedure code was recast thereafter by the present code of 1908. This court in Hanmant Rukhmaji v. Annaji Hanmant, ILR 37 Bom 620 held in a full circular was not affected in any in any by the provisions of the present code. That and in C. R. A. No. 589 of 1955 dated 1-2-1955 (Bom) J. C. Shan J. Held that the same law applies to the small cause court in Bombay, dealing with an appeal under the Rent Act.