LAXMAN BAPU BERAD Vs. SUDHAKAR NANASAHEB JAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question of law relating to the scope of jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court after the matter is remanded to it by the superior Court.

(2.) PETITIONER -plaintiff- landlord - claimed to be the owner of a portion of Sur. No. 251-A/1 bearing Cantonment Register No. 22 situated at Khalewadi Bhingar, District Ahmednagar. Plaintiff alleges that he is in possession of the premises for more than 70 years and one room constructed in the said premises was given by him to the respondent-defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. Since 1st February 1976, defendant has neglected to pay the rent and a fresh notice was issued by the plaintiff on 10th August 1984 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th September 1984. Thereafter, a suit came to be filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 718 of 1984 sought eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has neglected to pay rent for a period of more than six months and also on the count that the premises is required for bona fide personal use of the landlord - plaintiff. In the Written Statement defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff to the suit premises alleging that the premises is owned by the Government and the Government has given the suit premises under the 20 Point Programme to the defendant. On these pleadings, as many as 8 issues were framed by the learned trial Judge. He allowed the claim of the plaintiff for the possession on both the counts i. e. the default and bona fide requirement. The learned trial Judge though held the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises did not grant a decree for recovery of the amount due. An appeal challenging this decree passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar dated 23rd December 1988 was preferred bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1989. The learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, was pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the decree vide his order dated 19th January 1994 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1989. This order came to be challenged in a writ petition filed in this Court and this Court (Coram : M. S. Vaidya, J.) vide order dated 19th July 1994 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Ahmednagar and directed him to decide the Regular Civil Appeal afresh as per observations made in the writ petition.

(3.) WHEN the matter was remitted to the District Judge, the lower Appellate Judge, in turn, remanded the matter to the trial Judge setting aside the decree passed by the trial Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 718 of 1984 on 23rd December 1988 and directed him to decide the suit afresh on merits by giving full and proper opportunity to both the parties. It is this order of the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 31st December 1994 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1989 which is challenged in this writ petition.