BHIMSI H NISAR Vs. CHANDRRAKANT RAMCHAND ZAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, upon a revision application filed by two of the tenants of a building known as "Jamal Mansion" situated on Sleater Road, Bombay, against an order passed on their application under section 24 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, on September 30. 1974 by a Judge of the Small Causes Court directing the landlord, respondent in the tenants application, to restore the lift service to the tenants as it existed prior to December, 1966, i.e. both ways for going up as well as coming down and further directing that if the landlord Yakub Haji Musa Patrawala fails to restore the lift service within fifteen days he shall be liable to pay a daily fine of Rs. 25/-.

(2.) It is undisputed that on October 1, 1974, the said Patrawala sold the building to the petitioner in the above Special Civil Application, Bhimsi H.Nisar, Nisar made an application before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on March 3, 1976 for permission of the Appellate Bench for cross-examining three witnesses, viz. Dr. Raichand K. Nisar, Shri Ramanlal Gordhanadas Sheth and Shri Gulam Husein J. Taki who were not cross examined by the original landlord in the trial Court as his predecessor Shri Patrawala and his Advocate had not remained present for cross-examination of these witnesses. It must be noticed that the petitioner was made a party to the revision application at the instance of the tenants. The original landlord Shri Patrawala remained absent in the revision application. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner made the above application for opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground that the original landlord Shri Patrawala had lost interest in the property.

(3.) In the petition, filed in this Court, in para 5 it is stated that when the notice of the proceedings in revision was served on the petitioner, he objected to the said course being adopted by the tenants and contended that in the absence of any application for joining him as a party, he should not have been straightway served with the notice of the revision application. He also objected on the ground that under section 29 of the Rent Act the powers of the revisional Bench were very limited and that the Appellate Bench should give him an opportunity and for that purpose remand the case to the trial Court. All these objections were overruled and the request for permission was also rejected. The Appellate Bench by its aforesaid order dated March 10, 1976, modified the order passed by the trial Court and directed both the original landlord and the petitioner to restore the lift service to the tenants as it existed prior to December 1966 i.e. from 8 a.m. to 1.p.m. and 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. both for going up as well as for coming down; and further directed restoration of the lift service not only to the tenants, but also to their family members, guests and relations during the said timings, for going up as well as coming down. The Appellate Bench lastly directed that the order was to take effect after 10 days from the date of the order, confirming the rest of the order passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Bench, the petitioner filed the above Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The interim stay ordered by this Court was vacated and when a fresh application for stay was made, this Special Civil Application was ordered to be fixed for hearing.