KANTILAL MOHANLAL Vs. PRABHAVATIBEN B BARBODHANIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revision Application has been filed by the applicant-original defendant under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for the prayer that the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Civil Appeal No.10 of 1995 dated 09.02.1995 confirming the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Judge, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in H.R.P. Suit No.2350 of 1984 dated 29.12.1994 may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarised are that the respondent no.1-original plaintiff (landlady) filed H.R.P. Suit No.2350/1984 before the Small Causes Court against the applicant herein (original defendant no.1) and the respondent no.2 herein (original defendant no.2) on the ground of arrears of rent as well as sub-letting and also on the ground of permanent structure constructed by the defendants. After appreciating the evidence and hearing both sides, the Small Causes Court vide Judgment and Order dated 29.12.1994 decreed the aforesaid Suit and directed the original defendants to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises within two months. THE said order came to be challenged by the defendants by way of Civil Appeal No.10/1995 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. THE Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, on appreciation of evidence and after considering the submissions of the parties, rejected the appeal summarily vide Judgment and Order dated 09.02.1995. It is this Judgment and Order, which has been assailed in the present Revision Application by the applicant-original defendant no.2 on the grounds set out in the memo of this Revision Application inter alia that the lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. It is also contended that the lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that there was no subletting of the suit premises as the applicant-original defendant no.2 has been residing thereon. It is also contended that the lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence with regard to super structure or the permanent structure in the suit premises. It is also contended that the lower Appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence while dealing with the suit possession under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, Mr.Shah also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(10) Scale 222 in case of B.V. Nagesh and Anr. V/s H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and submitted that again the Apex Court has made observations as to manner in which the first Appellate Court is required to be considered. He emphasized the observations made therein to support his submission, which reads as under :- ?the appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for re-hearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions putforth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court?