Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1163320/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11633 of 2008
=========================================================
NATWARLAL
JAMNALAL GANDHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JITENDRA
KAPILRAI BHATT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MTM HAKIM for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 18/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Having
heard learned advocate Shri MTM Hakim for the petitioner, I find
that the impugned oder dated 15th April, 2008 passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Revision Application
No.12 of 2001 on merits is perfectly justified. The petitioner is a
tenant facing a Rent Suit filed by the landlord. In the said suit,
the petitioner gave an application for appointment of Court
Commissioner and drew a panchnama of the residence of the landlord
with several details asked for. Such prayer was granted by the trial
Court upon which the landlord approached the District Court in
revision application under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent (Hotel
and Lodging House Rate Control) Act. This revision application came
to be allowed by the impugned order. Insofar as the impugned order
is concerned, I am perfectly in agreement with the view expressed by
the District Court. Apparently, the applicant was seeking evidence
through Court Commissioner which could not have been permitted.
Learned
advocate Shri Hakim, however, pointed out that in the case of
Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Harvadan Manharlal & Ors. reported
in 1972 GLR 522; learned single Judge of this Court has held that
whenever the Rent Court renders its decision on purely procedural
matters governed by the provisions of Civil Procedures Code, it
cannot be said that they bear the imprint of the provisions of the
Bombay Rent Act or Rules made therein and in said case, the District
Court would have no jurisdiction under Section 29(3) of the Rent Act
to entertain the revision application.
Prima-facie
I find that in the language used in Section 29 of the Rent Act,
there is no distinction made limiting the scope of revision that the
District Court can entertain arising out of an interim order passed
by the Rent Court. However, I am bound by the decision of the
cognate Bench. Hence, Rule.
In
fact of the present case, in view of the observations made on
merits, the request of the petitioner for appointment of Court
Commissioner was not justified. Interim relief is refused.
It
is clarified that pendency of this petition shall not come in way of
the Rent Court in proceeding further with the pending Rent Suit. It
may be noted that application for appointment of Court Commissioner
was filed in the year 2001 and seven years have passed only in
trying to decide whether report of the Court Commissioner should
have been called for or not.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
ashish//
Top