Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHSCA30010992025 Presented on :07.11.2025
Registered on : 29.11.2025
Decided on : 17.01.2026
Duration : Yrs. Mths. Days
- 02 10
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI
(APPELLATE BENCH)
(BANDRA BRANCH)
REVISION APPLICATION NO.111 of 2025
IN
EXHIBIT NO.69
IN
RAE SUIT NO.281/522 OF 2009
1. Mr. CUTHBERT A CREADO
Age: 64 years
Occu : Private Service
Residing at Geo House, Juhu Church,
Juhu North, Juhu, Mumbai - 400049.
Applicant
(Orig. Plaintiff)
Versus
1.
1A
Mr. ALI ABDUL REHMAN KUMBLA (since
deceased)
Age: 60 years, Occ: Business
Proprietor of M/s. Cafe Churchil, Ground
floor, House No. G/1, Juhu Church Road,
Opp. BEST Depot, Juhu, Mumbai 400049
“Additional Registrar of Court of Small
Causes At Mumbai, Bandra Branch,”
as per the order dated 11.08.2017 passed
on Exhibit-36
2. M/s. CAFE CHURCHILL
A Partnership Firm
Ground Floor, House No. G/1
Juhu Church Road, Opp. BEST Depot
Juhu, Mumbai-400049
3. Smt. ZOHRA WD/O OF HAJI M. C.
MOHAMED UNNY
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
-- 1 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::2::
4. Mr. IQBAL S/O HAJI M. C. MOHAMED
UNNY
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
5. Mr. JAMAL S/O HAJI M. C. MOHAMED
UNNY
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
6. Mr. ABDUL HAKIM S/O HAJI M C
MOHAMED UNNY
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
7. Miss. NOORJAHAN D/O HAJI M. C.
MOHAMED UNNY
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
Nos. 3 to 7 carrying on business
At and from Cafe Cafe Churchil
Ground floor, House No. G/1
Juhu Church Road, Opp. BEST Depot
Juhu, Mumbai 40004
Respondents/
(Orig. Defendants)
Advocate Ms. Eventa A. Gonsalves for applicant.
Coram : Shri Ashish A. Ayachit,
Addl. Chief Judge
&
Shri D. R. Mali, Judge.
C.R. No. 41 (B.B.)
Date : 17th Day of January, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Shri Ashish A. Ayachit, Addl. Chief Judge)
This Revision Application is filed under Section 34(4) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the
MRC Act”), challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order
-- 2 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::3::
dated 10.09.2025 passed below Exhibit–69 in R.A.E. Suit No. 281/522
of 2009 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (B.B.), C.R. No. 34.
2. We have perused the Revision Application, the impugned
order, and the record.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Ms. Eventa Gonsalves
for the Applicant at admission stage.
4. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the
Court had appointed Advocate Mr. P. B. Remje as Court Commissioner
and that his Commissioner’s Report is at Exhibit–8. She submitted that
the said Commissioner is not available for evidence due to ill health
and, therefore, the Plaintiff applied for appointment of a fresh
Commissioner. She further submitted that the appointment of a
Commissioner is necessary to bring the factual position on record. She,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order requires interference in
revision, as it is prejudicial to the Plaintiff.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:-
5. The following points arise for our consideration and
determination. We have recorded our findings for the reasons given
below :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether impugned order is revisable? No
2. What order ? Revision application is
dismissed as per final
order.
-- 3 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::4::
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1:
6. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It is
now well settled that each and every order is not revisable. The
jurisdiction of the revisional court is very limited and restricted. The
Court has to consider whether the impugned order is not in accordance
with law.
7. In the present case, the Plaintiff applied for appointment of
a Court Commissioner, which came to be rejected on the ground that
such appointment would amount to collection of evidence. The
observations made by the Trial Court are correct and proper in the given
facts. It is a matter of record that the Court had already appointed a
Court Commissioner and that his report (Exh. 8) is on record and duly
exhibited. In such circumstances, appointing another Commissioner at
the instance of the Plaintiff is not proper, and therefore, the impugned
order is in accordance with law.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the
impugned order is not revisable. It is a procedural order and has been
passed in accordance with law; therefore, no interference is required.
Consequently, the impugned order is not amenable to revisional
jurisdiction. We, therefore, answer Point No. 1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2:
9. In view of the findings recorded above, the Revision
Application fails. As the matter has been decided at the admission stage,
-- 4 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::5::
no order as to costs is warranted. We answer Point No. 2 accordingly
and pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. The Revision application is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs
3. Notify the order to learned Trial Court.
I Agree,
(Dipak R. Mali) (Ashish A. Ayachit)
Judge Addl. Chief Judge,
C. R. No. 41 C. R. No. 41
17.01.2026 17.01.2026
Judgment dictated on : 17.01.2026
Judgment transcribed on : 17.01.2026
Judgment checked & signed on : 17.01.2026
/home/pa31/Varsha Wankhade/A. A. AAyachit/January-2026/Revision/111-2025 Revision.odt
-- 5 of 5 --