1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.528 OF 2007 Mrs. Meena Aktar Rizvi. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mrs.Maria Joseph D'Casta & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Pankaj Kawli with Mr. M.J. Shetty for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. September 23, 2008. P.C. The Petitioner took out an interim notice before the Small Causes Court for trying R.A.E. Suit No.3209 of 1981 and R.A.E. Suit No.8 of 2006 together. That came to be rejected by the impugned order. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Petitioner claims to be the landlady of the suit premises which are situated in A.G.D. Building, St. John Baptist Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. In 1981, the Petitioner instituted a suit for eviction, RAE Suit 3209 of 1981, against the tenant, who is a person by the name of E.Vaz. The suit was instituted on the ground of unauthorised construction and change of user. 2 During the pendency of the suit, the tenant expired. The First and Second Respondents were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased tenant. In 2006, the Petitioner instituted RAE Suit 8 of 2006 in which the ground for eviction is non-user of the premises for more than six months. The Respondents have been served. 2. Both the suits are pending before the same Court. The application filed by the Petitioner was that both the suits be heard and tried together by recording evidence therein. Parties to both the suits are the same. The first suit is on the ground of unauthorised construction while and change of user while the second suit is on the ground of non-user for six months. The ends of justice would be subserved if both the suits are tried together. 3. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of by making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of Interim Notice No.637 of 2006 which reads as follows: “(a) That the present suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No.3209 of 1981 and R.A.E. Suit No.8 of 2006 be heard and tried together by recording evidence therein.” 3 4. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 13th November 2006 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ......