LAWS(BOM)-1997-2-56

SUMERLAL M BAFNA Vs. D D CHOTHIA

Decided On February 05, 1997
SUMERLAL M.BAFNA Appellant
V/S
D.D.CHOTHIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlords petition challenging the order dated 20-11-1990 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at bombay in Revision Application No. 75 of 1990 whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners by which the petitioners had challenged the order dated 3-7-1990 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, bombay, in R. A. N. No. 358/res/1984.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these proceedings are that the respondents are tenants residing in a building owned by the petitioners. The respondents filed an application before the trial Court under section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act. The application was filed on 17-7-1984 for a direction to the petitioners to take all steps necessary to reconnect electric supply to a lift in the building and further to take all necessary steps including the payment of B. E. S. T. dues to restore the essential supply of lift and to make it in working condition. This application was granted by the trial Court by its judgment dated 3-7-1990.

(3.) BEFORE the Courts below, an objection was raised by the landlords that, the application filed by the respondents, was barred by limitation. It was the case of the landlords that according to the respondent-tenants, the lift stopped working in the month of January 1980. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of 3 years for making an application under section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act from the date on which the right to apply accrues. According to the petitioners, the right to apply under section 24 accrued to the tenants in January 1980. Therefore, the application under section 24 for restoration of the lift facility should have been made by them within a period of 3 years from the stoppage of the lift which occurred in the month of January 1980. The contention of the petitioners was rejected by the Revisional Court by relying on the provisions of section 22 of the Limitation Act. The Revisional Court held that because of the provisions of section 22 of the Limitation Act, the application filed on 17-7-1984 is within limitation.