Shridhar Keshav Berde, Thr. C.A. Sandip ... vs Ranjeetmal Jasaraj Oswal (Since Dec.) ... on 18 March, 2024
(g) or clause (i) of Section 16(1) will depend upon pleadings raised by
Plaintiff, evidence produced by him and findings recorded by the Court
while passing decree for eviction. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Kantharia
on denial in written statement of contention raised by Plaintiff in
paragraph No.5 is totally irrelevant. It therefore cannot be contended
that the Defendant did not raise the issue before the Trial Court. In
fact, raising of the issue about the exact clause under which eviction
was sought was not even required to be raised by Defendant. It was for
Page No.9 of 18
18 March 2024
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2024 15:25:51 :::
kishor CRA 420 of 2023.dox.docx
the Trial Court to decide whether it was passing decree under clause (g)
or clause (i) of Section 16(1). The exact ground on which decree of
eviction is passed became ultimately clear only when the suit was
decreed by the Trial Court. In his Appeal memo Applicant specifically
raised ground of clause 16(1)(i) and that his eviction was sought solely
for the purpose of construction of new premises by demolishing House
bearing No.2481. It therefore cannot be contended that Applicant is
seeking to raise a new ground for the first time in Revision filed under
Section 115 of the Code. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Kantharia on the
Judgments of Vasantrao Gudacharva Jahagirdar, Food
Corporation of India, ABL International Ltd. and Madan
Mohan Kotal (supra) is totally misplaced.