1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both the Civil Revision Applications and as such they are arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad, both these Civil Revision Applications are heard together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2.0. As such both these Civil Revision Applications can be said to be cross revision application arising out of the cross Civil Revision Application Nos. 32 of 1983 and 33 of 1983 filed in the Court of learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad.
3.0. It appears that the petitioner of Civil Revision Application No. 1105 of 1996 is the tenant and respondent is the landlord. It appears that the landlord discontinued essential services like water supply and disconnected the water which was available from the Municipal connection and even disconnected drainage system as well as closed the window which was likely to affect the tenant and even Otta was removed and therefore, tenant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2425 of 1977 before the learned trial Court under Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act for the restoration of the essential service etc. That the learned trial Court by judgment and order dated 31.1.1983 partly allowed the said application and passed the following order:
The applicants application is allowed and the opponent is directed to allow the applicant to continue the user of the water tap in the disputed premises which was got installed for water drawn from the municipal main directly during the pendency of this proceedings. The opponent is further directed to open the window in the western wall of the disputed premises and to give the applicant adequate gutter connection for passing of dirty water from the disputed premises into the main gutter of the municipal corporation.
3.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court in passing the aforesaid order, the landlord-respondent herein preferred Revision Application No. 32 of 1983 and so far as reliefs which were not granted by the learned trial Court that is with respect to Otta which was removed etc. the tenant-applicant herein preferred Revision Application No.33 of 1983. Both the Revision Applications came to be heard by the learned Revisional Court and by judgment and order dated 19.2.1996, the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad on appreciation of evidence by passing reasoned order dismissed the aforesaid two revision applications confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2425 of 1977.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court passed in Revision Applications No. 32 and 33 of 1983, both the landlord as well as tenant have preferred present Civil Revision Applications under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.
4.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court passed in Revision Applications No. 32 and 33 of 1983 as well as order passed by the learned trial Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2425 of 1977, it appears to the Court that as such no illegality has been committed either by the learned trial Court by passing order dated 31.1.1983 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2425 of 1977 as well as common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court passed in Revision Applications No. 32 and 33 of 1983.
5.0. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears to the Court that the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error and / or illegality while passing the order with respect to Otta which was already removed. Considering the order passed by the learned trial Court passed in application under Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act which has been confirmed by the learned Revisional Court, by which, the learned trial Court has directed to restore the essential services such as water connection, drainage connection etc., it cannot be said that the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court have committed any error and / or illegality which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act.
6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both the Civil Revision Applications fail and they deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.
sd/-
( M. R. Shah, J. ) kaushik Top