:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2007 Sau. Ramkunvarbai Hiralal Bharadiay & Anr. ...Applicants. v. Vishnu Laxman Naik ...Respondent. Mr.M.M.Sathaye , adv. for the Applicants. Mr.Anand S. Patil h/for Smt. Smita Gaidhani , advs. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicants before this Court are the landlords and the original defendants. The respondent, who is the tenant had filed the suit no.188 of 2000 for declaration of tenancy in respect of certain property described in plaint. The suit was dismissed. The landlords/defendants had filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property but admitted that he was tenant in respect of Room Nos.11 admeasuring 64 sq.ft. and that the said room is part of the Municipal House No.4615 situated in C.S.No.5869/2/4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was tenant. Against that the plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.67 of 2003. The learned Appellate Court however, partly allowed the appeal on the ground that the landlords/defendants had :2: themselves admitted tenancy of the plaintiff over Room Nos.11. Accordingly, the decree was passed. The landlords have preferred the present Revision Application challenging the said judgment passed in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the Revision Applicant made a statement before this Court that the landlords have no problem as far as the declaration of tenancy in respect of Room No.11 is concerned but according to him, the learned Appellate Court should have specifically stated the area of this room being 64 sq.ft. and the area is not mentioned, it may create further dispute between the parties. Therefore, he pressed only for prayer clause (c) whereby the learned counsel seeks direction to the lower Appellate Court to specify 64 sq.ft. being the area in possession of the plaintiff in the operative part of the judgement. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also agrees that the matter may be remanded back to the lower Appellate Court so that the Appellate Court may hear both the parties in respect of only area of Room No.11. It is material to note that the original plaintiff has not preferred any revision against judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. It means that he has no objection to the decree passed in his favour only in respect of room no.11. The Appellate Court has not dealt with the area of this room. Both the learned :3: counsel agree that the matter may be remanded back to the Appellate Court to clarify this position. 3. Therefore, with consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, Revision Application is hereby allowed and Civil Appeal No.67 of 2003 is hereby remanded back to the Vth Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik with direction to hear parties in respect of the area of the room no.11 to clarify the same in final decree. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)