1 CRA 270 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2011 Ramesh Narayan Anchan ...Applicant Vs. Matilda D’Silva & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi for Applicant Mr.Mehervan R. Irani for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 3rd August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondents. 2. The Applicant is the Original Defendant No.2 and the Respondent No.1 is the Original Plaintiff. The Respondent No.2 is the Original-Tenant. A suit was filed for eviction against the Applicant and the Respondent No.2 on the ground of sub-letting and permanent construction. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of the Respondent No.2 creating sub- tenancy in favour of the Applicant herein. This order was confirmed in appeal. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the Applicant has filed this Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2 CRA 270 of 2011 3. Firstly, it is submitted that though there was a specific pleading in the written statement that the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff was not the landlord and there was no nexus between the Applicant and the Respondent No.1, no issue was framed by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court. On the basis of evidence, which was adduced by the Plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is the landlord. It was submitted that A.H. Wadia Charity Trust was the landlord and in support, reliance was placed on the letter written by the Applicant to the A.H. Wadia Charity Trust and reply given by the Trust to the Applicant. It is further submitted that the suit has been filed for eviction of the Applicant in respect of an area admeasuring 80 sq.ft. and the Applicant also is in possession of another area of 224 sq.ft. which is a part of the suit premises and if the possession of 80 sq.ft. is taken by the Plaintiff, the Applicant would have no access to the adjoining shop of 224 sq.ft. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-Original Plaintiff submitted that the Applicant had admitted in the cross- examination that he was not a tenant of A.H. Wadia Charity Trust. It was also submitted that both the Courts after going through the evidence on record had recorded finding that the Plaintiff is the owner of the 3 CRA 270 of 2011 suit structure. So far as the second submission is concerned, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that when an application was made for deciding both the suits together, the said application was opposed by the present Applicant. It is submitted that at this stage, therefore, no objection can be raised by the Applicant. 5. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by both the Lower Courts. Though in the written statement there is an averment that there was no nexus between the Defendant-Applicant herein and the Plaintiff, no issue was framed on this aspect by the Trial Court. No objection was raised by the Applicant herein either in the Trial Court or in the Lower Appellate Court. It is, therefore, now not open for the Applicant to raise this issue for the first time in this Court. More over, perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the Courts have held that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property. So far as the second submission is concerned, it will not be open for this Court to go into the said aspect at this stage. 6. Hence, Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Two months’ time is given to the Applicant to hand over the possession of the suit premises. Liberty is granted to the Applicant to seek appropriate orders in respect of 4 CRA 270 of 2011 seeking access to the adjoining property. Certified copy is expedited. Civil Revision Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)