1.0 Present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) has been preferred by the petitioners original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana dated 29.9.1992 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1988.
2.0 That the original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.276 of 1984 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana for declaration and permanent injunction that he is the tenant of the entire building except one room located on the second floor of the suit building and also for permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing him. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that he is the tenant of entire ground floor and first floor of the suit house and that the second and third are in possession of the defendant. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that under the pretext of repairing in 1984, the defendants no.2 obtained the possession, as they were asked to repair the partition wall between the last two rooms and the defendant no.2 tried to lock that room on 30.7.1984 after it was repaired but the plaintiff and his son stopped him and therefore, the aforesaid suit was filed.
2.1. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement at Exh.14. The learned trial Court framed the issue and on appreciation of evidence, partly allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated 15.12.1987 holding that one of the suit room was in possession of the defendants and remaining in the possession of the plaintiffs and ordered the petitionersplaintiffs to entitle the possession of the other room to the defendant.
2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.1987, the petitioners herein heirs and legal representative of original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1988 before the learned District Court, Mehsana. The defendant also filed cross objections. The appeal as well as cross objection were heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana who by his judgment and order dated 29.9.1992 has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and partly allowed the cross objection by directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the last room to the defendant only on paying Rs.
7.50 court fee to the respondentdefendant.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioners herein have preferred Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Stamp Act.
3.0 Shri Barot, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have held that learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to pass decree of possession even if the application Exh.45 is to be construed as counter blast. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the aforesaid fact. It is submitted that even otherwise the learned Appellate Court has materially erred in dismissing the appeal and partly allowing the cross objection filed by the respondent hereinoriginal defendant. By making above submission, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application. No other submissions have been made.
4.0 Civil Revision Application is opposed by Shri Shah, learned advocate for the respondentoriginal defendant. It is submitted that as such no error has been committed by the learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and partly allowing the cross objections preferred by the respondent herein defendant. It is submitted that findings of fact given by the learned Appellate Court is absolutely in consonance with the law and on appreciation of evidence which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.
5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as well as documentary evidence from the record and proceedings which is received from the learned trial Court.
6.0 At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below with respect to the possession and tenancy rights of the plaintiffs and the same are on appreciation of evidence which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional powers. Even learned advocate for the petitioners is not in a position to point out how the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as well as in allowing the cross objection by the learned Appellate Court do not require any interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil Revision Application fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No cost.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )