( 1 ) WHILE we are not inclined to grant special leave at this stage we however record our disapproval of the way in which the learned Single Judge has dealt with the judgment of Hon. M. C. Trivedi J which dealt with the identical point and which judgment was binding on the learned Judge. It is not open to a learned Single Judge to reject the ratio of the decision of another learned Single Judge of the same High Court by merely saying that attention of M. C. Trivedi J. was not invited to the decision of Supreme Court which may have an impact on the point under examination. Judicial comity demands and this Court has often reiterated that in that event the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. But in this case learned Judge has observed that he is unable to agree with the view taken by M. C. Trivedi J. because in his view the question was directly covered by an earlier decision of this Court. That aspect of the matter itself needs examination. Therefore if the matter at any stage goes back to the High Court and the same question is raised in the interest of justice it should be heard by a Division Bench. Mr. Kaji learned Advocate for the petitioner made another grievance that the relief was granted in the absence of a pleading in the plaint on the question of tenancy as covered by Section 13 (1) (f) of the Bombay Rent Act as applicable in Gujarat. Mr. Arun Mehta learned Advocate for respondent appearing on caveat conceded that as the matter be remanded to the District Judge Nadiad plaintiff will seek permission for appropriate amendment of the plaint. If such an application is made learned Judge may deal with it according to law and it should not be understood that this Court has directed such an amendment being made. With these observations the special leave petition is dismissed. Court Master

.