SCA/8079/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8079 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SAKEENABIBI WD/O BILAL SHAHALAM & 1 - Petitioner(s) Versus ABUBAKER HABIBULLAH MANSURI & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DAXESH T DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for Respondent(s) : 1, 5, MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4, 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 11/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Petitioners are the original defendants. They have challenged an order dated 12th March 2006 passed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad SCA/8079/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT below Ex.115 application in HRP Suit No.1435/98. 2. Respondents herein the landlords have filed the said suit seeking eviction of the tenant, present petitioners on various grounds, including arrears of rent and encroachment outside the tenanted property. During the course of trial, while the plaintiff's witness was being examined, in the cross-examination, he denied a suggestion put forth by the counsel for the petitioners that on a particular date, there was heavy rain in the city of Ahmedabad. Upon this, the petitioners moved application Ex.115 and sought issuance of witness summons to Government officers to produce records regarding rainfall in the city of Ahmedabad between 1.8.90 to 31.8.90. This application came to be dismissed by the learned Judge by the impugned order. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I do not find that the learned Judge committed any legal error. It is the case of the petitioners that the data regarding rainfall was necessary to establish before the Court that in the month of August 1990, there was heavy rainfall in the city of Ahmedabad which resulted in collapse of wall of the tenanted premises which the landlord was statutorily bound to keep in proper repair. 4. The learned Judge, however was of the opinion that none of the issues relate to this aspect of the matter and witness summons is therefore SCA/8079/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT unnecessary. I fully agreed with this view. I have perused the issues raised by the learned Judge in the said suit. The issues pertain to questions of the tenant being in arrears of rent and his unwillingness to pay rent and with respect to the illegality of the notice issued by the land-lord, correct standard rent of the premises, etc. In particular issue No.5 reads as follows:- “5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has made encroachment on open land and created hearlded in the passage and there by made the breach of bombay rent act proviso as alleged? Question of alleged collapse of wall on account of excess rain cannot be related to any of the issues. 5. Under the circumstances, no relevance is made out by the petitioners for production of documents. Witness summons was, therefore, rightly dismissed. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)