JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) The present application arises out of suit filed by the a petitioners against the Respondent for eviction on three grounds - (a) arrears of rent for more than six months, (2) alterations in the premises without the permission of the landlord and (3)- for non = payment of water charges. The case is governed by the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 to which we will refer as the Rent Act. The Defendants - Opponent resisted the eviction and one of the contentions was that the notice to quit was bad in law. The learned trial judge dismissed the suit holding that the notice was bad in law. He also rejected the other contentions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed under S,. 29 of the Act. The learned appealed under S. 29 of under O. 41 R. 11 of the civil Procedure Code Summarily without assigning any reasons whatsoever for rejecting the appeal. This revision application comes before the against this order.

(2) It is very regrettable that a revision application should take almost 5 years for being heard in such petty that a matter. One only wonders at the patience of the litigants who must be seriously affected by the delays of the litigation. The main ground urged to by Mr. Walavilkar is that the learned Judges while rejecting his appeal summarily do not give any reasons whatsoever for the same while they were bound to give on the other hand it is contended for the a opponent that it is not necessary for the appellate Bench to given reasons while rejecting an appeal. The question is of some importance and therefore it was ordered to be heard by a Bench.

(3) Order 41. R. 11 which deals with the dismissal of appeals at the stage of admission does not given requires that the appellate court should give reasons while dismissing an appeal summarily but the High Court has under the High Court the Act framed circulars - Civil Circular 51 of 1890 of by which a subordinate court dismissing appeal summarily is required to give reasons for the same. The civil procedure code was recast thereafter by the present code of 1908. This court in Hanmant Rukhmaji v. Annaji Hanmant, ILR 37 Bom 620 held in a full circular was not affected in any in any by the provisions of the present code. That and in C.R. A. No. 589 of 1955 dated 1-2-1955 (Bom) J.C. Shan J. Held that the same law applies to the small cause court in Bombay, dealing with an appeal under the Rent Act.

(4) Under S. 31 of the act the court has to follow the prescribed procedure i.e. the procedure prescribed by the Act rules framed under it, chapter IV of the rules deals with small cause court at Bombay and R. 9 prescribed that the court in appeals shall follow as far as may and with necessary modifications the practice and procedure prescribed for appeals by the code itself does not contain any provisions requiring the Appellate court to write reasons while rejecting an appeal It is therefore argued by the that the Appellate court to court is not required to give any reasons whatsoever for rejecting to give any reasons whatsoever for rejecting an appeal. This arguments cannot be accepted the court under the Rent Act it is a special court different from the small cause court as such and is not government by the presidency small causes court Act restrictions, therefore regarding the applicability of orders and circulars of the High Courts to small causes court in Bombay does not apply to the Bench hearings in appeals under the Rent Act. As a court subordinate to the High court it is bound by the circulars issued by the High Court it is not functioning as small causes court as any other subordinate court. After the Hanmant Rakhmajis case in ILR 37 Bom 610, the decisions in Tanaji Degade v. Shankar Sakharan, ILR Bom 116 Cannot regarded as good law.

(5) It is then contended that the circular had been issued under the powers vested in the High court in under the High Court Act 1861 and since the said Act has been replete by the government of India

Click Here to Read the rest of this document