1 cra21.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2009 M/s.Wadi Bunder Cotton Press Company ...Applicant vs. M/s.Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.J.J.Thakkar for the applicant Mr.G.S.Godbole a/w Mr.Akram Bastivi i/b M/s.Harilal Thaker & Co. for the respondent no.1 Mr.U.J.Makhija a/w Mr.Parag Khandkhar i/b M/s.Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 29, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The challenge in this civil revision application is to the decree for eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes which is confirmed in appeal by the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes. The first respondent is the original plaintiff and the present revision applicant is the second defendant. The second respondent in the revision application is the first defendant. Against the decree passed by the trial Court, there were two separate appeals preferred by the applicant and the second respondent. The appeals were heard together and were decided by a common Judgment by the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes. The appeals were dismissed by confirming the finding of the trial Court that the second respondent has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and that revision applicant is 2 cra21.sxw not entitled to protection of sub section 2 of section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The second respondent filed a revision application in this Court for challenging the said Judgment and decree. By a detailed Judgment and order dated 17th April 2008, this Court dismissed the the revision application filed by the second respondent confirming the decree of eviction passed against the applicant and the second respondent. The second respondent has challenged the Judgment and order dated 17th April 2008 by preferring a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which is pending. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the revision application filed by the second respondent, the applicant was not heard and therefore, the said decision is not binding on the applicant. He submitted that the issue raised by the applicant that the applicant is protected under the said Act has not been considered and decided by this Court while dealing with the revision application filed by the second respondent. He submitted that notwithstanding the confirmation of impugned decree by this Court, this revision application will have to heard on its own merits. 4 I have considered the submissions. The impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court have been confirmed in the aforesaid aforesaid civil revision application. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2587), the impugned Judgments and decrees stand 3 cra21.sxw merged with the Judgment and order of this Court passed in the revision application preferred by the second respondent. This Court has confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below on merits. Hence, a different view cannot be taken by this Court in the present revision application. 5 Only on this ground, the revision application cannot be entertained and the same is rejected. 6 On the prayer made by the Counsel for the applicants, the Decree for possession shall not be executed as against the applicant for a period of three months from today. JUDGE