AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gita Gopi, J
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the appellants Mr. S.P. Majmudar with Mr. Jamshed Kavina.
The following substantial questions of law arise for determination and consideration :-
“(a) Whether both the learned Courts below committed a substantial error of law by failing to appreciate that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred under Section 28 of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Conrol Act, 1947 while deciding a question of validity of tenancy?
(b) Whether the learned first Appellate Court has committed a substantial error of law by not re-appreciating the evidence and law as mandated under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while deciding the Appeal?
(c) Whether the learned trial Court had committed a substantial error of law by reducing the burden of proof on the landlord where the plaintiff had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the open land was rented out?
(d) Whether the learned Appellate Court committed a substantial error of law by not framing proper points of determination as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
(e) Whether both the learned Courts below have committed a substantial error of law by doubting the validity of the registered Sale Deed No.361 despite it being deemed to be valid in law?”
ADMIT.
Let the connected Civil Application be heard alongwith the main matter.