The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court to follow the proper procedure under Section 11 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, when giving conflicting judgments.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. Taken up for final disposal by consent.

2. The Respondent No.1 is appointed as a receiver by order of this Court dated 21 July 1967 in respect of property known as Shivlal Motilal Mansion/Compound, comprising of several buildings, bearing Municipal House Nos. 1 to 23 at Dr. Bhadkamkar Marg ,Bombay Central, Mumbai. One Simon Pinto was a tenant of Room No.1, Flat No. E-22 on third floor of the building. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are heirs of the said Simon Pinto. Respondent No.1-landlord filed R.A.E. Suit No. 1569/1998 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. Suit was filed on the ground that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sub-let the suit premises in favour of the applicant. It was also contended that the applicant thereafter carried out various additions and alterations of permanent nature without the consent of Respondent No.1. The learned Small Causes Court by its judgment and decree dated 10 August 2006 decreed the suit. Thereafter the applicant filed an Appeal No. 565/2006 before the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court.

3. After the Appeal was heard by the Appeal Bench, on 7 May 2014, the Appeal Bench comprising of Mr. S.B. Gabhane, Additional Chief Judge and Mr. H.M. Bhosale, Judge, gave two differing judgments. Mr. S.B. Gabhane allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Small Causes Court, while Mr. H.M. Bhosale dismissed the appeal. The matter was referred to the third judge in view of Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 11 of the Presidencies Small Causes Court Act, 1882. Mr. Yogesh Rane, Additional Chief Judge, as a third judge by judgment and order on 16 December 2014 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the present revision application is preferred, challenging the judgment and order dated 16 December 2014.

4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire methodology adopted by the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court in dealing with the appeal is bad in law. He submitted that when the two judges deferred, they ought to have crystallized the point of difference and referred that point to the third judge who then should have placed his opinion before the Division Bench for the Division Bench to pronounce the decision. He submitted that both the steps have not been taken there is no decision in the eyes of law, which is resulted in a peculiar position. Mr. Andyarjuna, on the other hand submitted that it is not necessary to frame a point and the matter can be referred to the third Judge and though it is desirable to place the matter before the Division Bench again after the decision of the third Judge is rendered, it is not necessary in all circumstances. According to him, two judges have held that the appeal needs to be dismissed, and in the facts of the present case the two judgments combined should be considered as decision of the Court.

5. The proceedings before the Small Causes Court are governed by the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. Section 5 of the Act established Small Causes Courts in presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Small Causes Court is subject to the superintendence of the respective High Courts. Small Causes Court consists of various judges, the Chief Judge being first in rank. The Chief Judge is in charge of distribution of business of the Court. Procedure and practice of Small Causes Court is prescribed by the High Court from time to time by rules having force of law. The Small Causes Court, as far as may be, to the extent or otherwise provided under the Act, would follow the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court Judge is appealable to the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court.

6. Section 11 of the Act of 1882 as initially stood, provided that in case there is a difference of opinion between the judges, the chief judge or the senior amongst the two will have the casting vote. By Maharashtra Act of XXXV, 1