TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of a deed of lease executed on 8.4.1964 is a tenant under the respondents presently. The original landlord was restore dents' predecessor-in-title. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'landlords') filed a suit under Section 13(l)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short 'the Bombay Rents Act') ir 1983 seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord by order dated 8.4.1994. It we s held that landlords had proved reasonable need and greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if prayer for eviction is not allowed. The said order was challenged in Appeal No.208 of 1994 before the Small Causes Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment refuting the stands taken that the tenancy had been lawfully terminated and the grounds indicated therefor. Reference was made also to the proceedings in the Bombay High Court under the Bombay Rents Act. It was contended that in view of Section 58 of the said Act, suit was not maintainable. The Small Causes Court, Mumbai passed judgment and decree in favour of the landlord holding that the suit was maintainable, the tenancy had been validly terminated and directed the appellant-bank to hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlord. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant-bank filed appeal no. 718 of 2001 before the Appellate Court which dismissed the same by order dated 12.7.2002. Appellant-bank filed writ petition (civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to make a grievance that the question was not examined by the High Court. With reference tc the question of non-adjudication in this issue, it is submitted that if the appellant takes the stand that the plea was not given up, the proper course is to approach the High Court for clarification, if any. It is also pointed out the validity of the provisions was never in i: sue before the Courts below and for the first time by way of amendment of the writ petition, the challenge was sought to be introduced. By way of reply to the aforesaid stand of the learned counsel for the landlords, Mr. Chidambaram pointed out that the application for amendment was filed on 7.1.2003 i.e. the date on which the impugned order was passed. The High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... move the High Court in line with what has been said in Slate of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Anr [1982] 2 SCC 463. In recent decisions i.e. Bhavnagar University v. patina Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd., (2002) AIR SCW 4939 and Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 3 SCALE 611 the view in the said case was reiterated Statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to cull the attention of the very Judges w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adesh, Nagpur and Bhandara v M/s. Straw Products Ltd., AIR (1966) SC 1113,. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC, 261 and recently in West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd., [2002] 8 SCC 715. Great emphasis was laid on Sec. 113 CPC, by Mr. Nariman to con end that had the stand been taken before Courts below, in case of necessity, the provision could have been resorted to. The said provision reads as follows: 113 Reference to High Court - Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court nay make such order thereon as it thinks fit. [Provided that where the Court is satisfied that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court Undisputedly, a Division Bench of the High Court has decided the question and, therefore, Section 113 has no application. It is not, however, necessary to go into the question whether having not taken the plea before the courts below, the High Court should have permitted the question to be raised before it as admittedly, the High Court had permitted the challenge to be made by allowing the application for amendment. The case was disposed of on the date the amendment was allowed, and in fact by the consolidated order which dealt with the prayer for amendment, allowed it and went on to dispose of the writ petition, without dealing with plea of invalidity. In the aforesaid factual background High Court should have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
