BAI DHULI WD O NARSIBHAI CHHOTALAL Vs. BAI ICHHA
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Bai Dhuli Wd O Narsibhai Chhotalal
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision application has been placed before me vide the orders of Honourable the Chief Justice under certain unfortunate circumstances which will be presently stated by me.
(2.) . This revision application arises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act. It has been filed by the petitioners-original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree for possession passed against them by the Small Cause Court at Baroda and as confirmed by the appellate court. The decree for possession is passed under sec. 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act. This revision application reached final hearing before late A.N. Surti J. on 9-2-1983. After hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides Surti J. dictated an oral order in the court to the stenographer. Under the said order the revision application was dismissed. Rule was discharged but the respondent-landlady was directed not to execute the decree for possession for a period of three months from the date of the oral order i. e. 9-2-1983. I am told that the said oral order was subsequently transcribed but before the transcribed order could be signed by Surti J. unfortunately he expired. Under these circumstances the transcribed order has remained unsigned. It is thereafter that pursuant to the direction of the Honourable the Chief Justice this revision application has been placed before me for further orders.
(3.) At the outset I must state that both the learned Advocates Mr. Shelat as well as Mr. Akshay Mehta have made it clear before me that they do not wish to reargue the matter and both of them treat the oral order as dictated to the stenographer by Surti J. on 9-2-1983 as final order and that they have nothing more to say in the matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.