The discretionary nature of powers under Article 227 and the limited scope of interference by the High Court in matters where there is no patent perversity or gross failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. The Petitioner/Original Plaintiff has preferred the present Petition under Articles 14 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No. 22, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Judge”) below Application Exh.48 in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 2015, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Application Exh.48 of the Petitioner/Original Plaintiff, whereby the Petitioner/Original Plaintiff has prayed for necessary repairs in the suit property.

2. The facts leading rise to the present Petition in nutshell are that the petitioner is the Original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Original Defendants in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 2015, which is filed for permitting repairs in the property situated at Godown No. 58, Balaji Estate, Narol, Isanpur, Ahmedabad of which the owners are the Respondents/ Original Defendants. The said property was taken on rent in the year 2003. The Petitioner is doing the business of selling readymade garments from the suit property. That the portion of suit premises is broken and would likely to cause injuries. The Petitioner is the tenant of the disputed property and is paying regularly rent to the Respondents. As far as the ceiling portion of the rented premises is concerned, there is some damage to the same for which they have produced some photographs and have stated that in the go-down, the workers are doing the work and there are all chances that the said portion of the ceiling can fell down and so the portion is required to be repaired and though its was let known to the Respondents, the Respondents are not getting it repaired and so the relief for repairing the same was made before the Trial Court which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Sheth for the Petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. R.C. Jani for R.C. Jani and Associate for the Respondents.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth for the Petitioner has heavily contended that in the present case the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is ex-facie bad in law, erroneous and without jurisdiction and hence the same deserves to be quashed. He has further submitted that the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is passed in most cryptic and mechanical, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence the impugned order is without application of mind and perverse and hence same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is against the principles of equity as enshrined in the Transfer of Property Act and that the repairs ought to have been permitted for the purpose of making the premises habitable for labour work since the suit premises consist of a go-down and therefore the learned Judge has gravely erred in not allowing the Application and gravely erred in holding that the Petitioner is trying to linger the matter.

4.2 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has further submitted in the memo of Petition that the Application for injunction came to be dismissed for default, and thereafter, second application for injunction was also came to be rejected against which the Petitioner has filed Appeal from Order No. 189 of 2017 with Civil Application No. 7840 of 2017 with Civil Application No. 10437 of 2017 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.9.2017, against which the Petitioner has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 50228 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 2.1.2019. That during the proceeding of the Suit, the Respondents filed cross objection in Civil Suit No. 1224 of 2015 wherein the Respondents have filed Application Exh.25 for the purpose of obtaining appropriate interim relief pertaining to peaceful and vacant possession of the suit pro