SHRIDHAR NATHOO WAYKOLE Vs. YASHODABAI BHASKAR KORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 8th December 1993 by which the learned Judge expedited the hearing of RAE Suit No.768 of 1993 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein in the Small Cause Court at Bombay.

(2.) THE Respondent No.1 filed RAE Suit No.768 of 1993 for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the Respondent No.1 required the same bonafide and reasonably for her own use and occupation and on the ground that the Appellant has acquired other alternate suitable premises for residence i.e. under Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Hotel & Lodging House Rate (Control) Act, 1947. In the said Suit, the Respondent No.1 took out an application i.e. Interim Notice No.3033 of 1993 for expediting the hearing of the said suit. THE said notice came to be discharged on 7-10-1993 by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. THE same came to be challenged by the Respondent No.1 by filing the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the Respondent No.1 inter alia pointed out that the Respondent No.1 is 75 years of age and her husband is aged 86 years. Taking into consideration the various aspects and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed the order of expedition as mentioned above. THE same is under challenge in this L.P.A.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the question whether the impugned order is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable or not, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is essentially a discretionary order. It does not affect any right of the appellant. The learned Judge passed the said order after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the various circumstances. Further, the pendency of the suit of 1982 is not relevant. The Appellant can point out regarding getting of possession of some other premises in 1985 by Respondent No.1 at the hearing of the suit and can be taken into consideration by the learned Judge while considering the suit on merits. But that cannot be a factor relevant to this Appeal.