Kishorkumar Nanalal Barad ... vs Jayantibhai Devjibhai Barad
2021 Latest Caselaw 10210 Guj

      C/CRA/364/2004                              ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 364 of 2004

==========================================================
           KISHORKUMAR NANALAL BARAD DECD.THRO HEIRS
                             Versus
                   JAYANTIBHAI DEVJIBHAI BARAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MP PRAJAPATI(677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
ARCHITA M PRAJAPATI(8241) for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
DECEASED LITIGANT(100) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                            Date : 31/07/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.M.P.Prajapati and learned advocate Ms.Archita Prajapati appearing for the petitioners and respondent respectively.

2. The present Revision Application was filed under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, thereby the petitioners- original plaintiffs challenged judgment and order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge and learned Judge of Fast Track Court, Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No.293 of 2003 in turn setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2003 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Single Division), Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No.591 of 1990.

2.1 The suit was filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs praying for eviction of the defendant- tenant on the ground of making permanent structure in the rented premises and arrears of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit which was referred by lower appellate Court to result into instant Revision Application. The Revision Application was admitted by this Court on 3.11.2004.

C/CRA/364/2004 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2021

3. When the Revision Application came up for consideration today, learned advocates for the parties submitted and stated that the parties have settled their disputes outside the Court. They invited attention of the Court to the consent terms affirmed on 10.3.2021 filed on record of this Revision Application. The consent terms figures on record (Page No.63 to 78 with Annexures thereon).

4. It is stated in the consent terms that the heirs of the respondents have handed over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the petitioners on 20.9.2020. It is further mentioned that the parties have entered into agreement for releasing the tenancy rights and the possession of the property has been handed over as above. The copy of the agreement dated 20.9.2020 is also produced on record.

5. In view of the above consent terms when the possession is handed over by the heirs of the respondent tenant which has been taken over by the petitioners- plaintiffs, who acknowledges to be in possession of the property, no further orders are required in the Civil Revision Application. In view of settlement having been acted upon by the parties, the Civil Revision does not survive for its challenge. Accordingly, it is disposed of.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Manshi