ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Shri Chirag Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1, who is the main contesting party so far as the present Civil Revision Application is concerned.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.

3. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act has been preferred by the applicants- original plaintiffs-original opponents nos. 1 and 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001 to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Navsari dated 12/08/2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001 by which the learned appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent no. 1-original defendant no. 1 and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

4. The applicants-original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gandevi against the respondents-original defendant for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting and non-user of the suit premises. The learned trial Court did not pass the decree on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting and believed the case on behalf of the applicants-original plaintiffs for non-user of the suit premises by the original defendants and consequently allowed the said suit and decreed the suit for possession on the ground of non user of the suit premises for more than one year without any reasonable cause. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1998 respondent no. 1 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001 before the learned District Court, Navsari. It appears that in the said Appeal, the applicants-original plaintiffs-original opponents nos. 1 and 2 in the said Appeal also submitted cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as the finding given by the learned trial Court against the applicants-original plaintiffs with respect to arrears of rent and subletting. It appears that though the said cross objections were ordered to be taken on record by the learned District Judge, Navsari, without considering the said cross objections, the learned Additional District Judge, Navsari by impugned judgment and order has allowed Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001 and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1998 by which the learned trial Court has passed a decree against respondent no. 1 on the ground of non-user of the suit premises in question. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001, the applicants-original plaintiffs has preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act.

5. Shri Daxesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants-original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2001 the learned appellate Court has not considered the cross objection submitted by the applicants-original plaintiffs-opponents nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the finding given by the learned trial Court on arrears of rent and subletting. It is submitted that the cross objections were produced at Exh. 13 and though it was argued about the cross objections there is no reference to the same by the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that if the cross objections submitted by the applicants-original plaintiffs would have been considered by the learned appellate Court the learned appellate Court might have held the issue with re