1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5576 OF 2009 Sanjay Ishwarlal Kankia and others ...Petitioners vs. Ramanlal N. Trivedi ...Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.5576 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.5577 OF 2009 Sanjay Ishwarlal Kankia and others ...Petitioners vs. Bharatbhai N. Trivedi ...Respondent Mr.Suresh M. Shah for the petitioners Mr.Mehul Shah i/b Bharat Joshi for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 27, 2009 P.C. 1 These are the petitions filed by the petitioners- landlords who have filed suits for eviction in the year 2007 against the respondents-tenants. An application was made by the petitioners before the court of Small Causes praying that the eviction suits filed by them should be taken up for hearing on day to day basis till the same are finally decided. The said applications were heard by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court. The applications were rejected by the order impugned in these petitions. While rejecting the applications the learned Judge has recorded elaborate reasons as to why the suits cannot be heard on day to day basis. He, however, 2 observed that at the most short dates cannot be given in the suit to enable the court to decide the suit expeditiously. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the mandate of section 38 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 read with clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 2 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the court was duty bound to hear the suits on day to day basis once recording of evidence is commenced. He pointed out that no progress has been made in the case even after expiry of period of 9th months from the date on which the petitioners have filed their affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He pointed out that other two tenants have settled the dispute with the petitioners. He stated that the petitioners will not be able to comply with the commitment with other two tenants unless the petitioners obtain a decree in the pending suits. 2 I have considered the submissions. It will be necessary to refer to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the application made by the petitioners. The learned Judge has considered both the aforesaid statutory provisions. The learned Judge has also noted that once a suit becomes part heard, it is necessary to decide the suit expeditiously. The learned Judge has noted the following aspects : i) There are number of suits for eviction pending in 3 the said court on the ground of bonafide requirement. ii)There are number of suits pending where the parties are senior citizens. iii)There are number of part heard matters before the said court iv)In the circumstances, it is not possible to give expeditious hearing to each and every part heard matter on day to day basis. The learned Judge has rightly observed that if all the part heard suits are to be heard on day to day basis, considering the large number of such suits, if all such suits are kept on board on every day it will cause enormous inconvenience to the litigants and the Advocates. The Advocates will not be able to attend their other matters in the other courts. 3 The learned Judge has given cogent reasons for not fixing the suits on day to day basis. Considering the large pendency of suits in the Small Causes Court, it is impossible to expect the Small Causes Court to take up all suits in which the recording of evidence has commenced on day to day basis. The provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 2 of Order XVII of the said Code as well as the provisions of section 38 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 are the procedural provisions. It is said that the said Code of 1908 is an 4 ideal legislation. But the situation in the courts in the city of Mumbai is not ideal. The court of Small Causes has a large filing and a large pendency. If the aforesaid provisions of the Order XVII are to be implemented by taking every part heard suit on day to day basis, the entire functioning of the Small Causes Court in the city of Bombay will be adversely affected. The Appeal Bench of the said Court and this court is passing orders in various suits fixing a time bound schedule. The harsh reality that considering the huge pendency of suits, the mandate of law cannot be implemented has to be accepted. A litigant is right in expecting early disposal of his case but it is not possible in every case to do so. Our legal system lacks adequate infrastructure. We do not have adequate number of Judges to deal with the pendency. However, the learned Trial Judge has observed that every endeavour will be made to give priority to the hearing of the part heard cases and to dispose of the same expeditiously. No case is made out for interference in Writ jurisdiction. Writ petitions are rejected. JUDGE