Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: ..1.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
MHCC010005442019 Lodged on : 15/01/2019
Registered on : 15/04/2019
Decided on : 27/03/2026
Duration : Years Months Days
07 02 12
Exhibit-29
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
S.C. SUIT NO.1060 OF 2019
1. Mr. Shankar Prabhu Wanjale
Age – 49 years.
2. Mr. Govind Prabhu Wanjale
3. Mr. Dinesh Prabhu Wanjale
Age – 47 years
All residing at : Survey No.44, Hanuman
Nagar, Poud Road, Near Balaji Mithra Mandal,
under Balaji Rukmini Mandir, Pune – 411 038. ..Plaintiffs
V/s.
1. Smt. Neeta Bhagwan Lohakare
An Adult, Age : 50 years, Indian Inhabitant
residing at 10th Floor, GRD, 57,
Hari Ganga Niwas, Kesharinathbuwa,
Bhaye Marg, Valmik Chowk, Worli Colony,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 030
2. Saraswati Nivrutti Karpe
Age : 60 years, Occu : Housewife
71, Tare House, Opp. Shankar Temple,
Worli Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030 ..Defendants
Appearance
Adv. Mr. Rishabh Shah a/w Adv. Sanika Athalye i/b Raval Shah & Co.
for Plaintiff.
Adv. Mr. Makrand Bakore for Defendant No.1.
Ex-parte against Defendant No.2.
CORAM : SMT. S.S.NAGUR
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.62)
-- 1 of 17 --
..2.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
DATE : 27.03.2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and
injunction under Section 34 and 37 of Specific Relief Act.
Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is as under :-
2. The defendant No.1 is sister of plaintiffs and defendant
no.2. the plaintiffs are not seeking any reliefs against defendant No.2.
3. The plaintiffs stated that the father of the plaintiffs Prabhu
Raghu Wanjale was staying in the rented premises 71/E, Tare House,
Worli Koliwada, Mumbai - 400 030 since the year 1962. The premises
was taken from landlord Mr. Gopinath Harishchandra Tare from 1955 to
1991. He was employed in the company D.P. Shah & Sons. The rent
receipts were not issued at that relevant time. The father of the
plaintiffs got married in or around 1969-1970 with defendant No.2 and
stayed in the premises. In or around 1983 the plaintiff No.2 moved to
Pune. In the same year mother also moved to Pune. She expired on
16/01/2006.
4. The plaintiffs stated that in the year 1984 the landlord
wanted to renovate the suit premises. In the year 1986 the landlord Mr.
Tare shifted the entire family to make shift premises i.e. House No.57,
Valmiki Chowk, Worli Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai - 400 030 (suit
premises). The defendant No.1 eloped with one Mr. Bhagwan Lohakare
and stayed with him at 85/A, Hari Kiru, Warlikar Niwas, Opp. Ganesh
Book Depot, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai - 400 030. The defendant No.1 is
owner of two houses located at (i) 69/E, Jai Malhar Niwas, Worli
-- 2 of 17 --
..3.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai -400 018 and (ii) Gora Dapkal, Sonapur Lane,
Worli Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai 400 018, which is close proximity from
the suit premises.
5. The plaintiffs stated that Prabhu Wanjale expired on
24/09/1992 intestate. He resided in the suit premises from 1986 to
1992. The plaintiff No.1 lived with his family in the suit premises and
stated the document such as ration card, electricity bill etc., to show
that he lived there.
6. The plaintiffs stated that plaintiff No.1 moved to Pune for
work with family. The plaintiff No.2 used to visit the suit premises every
month from 2002 to 2012. The landlord in August 2013 decided to re-
develop the House no.57, Opp. Sonapur Lane, Worli Koliwada, Worli -
400 030. A Development Agreement dated 13/10/2013 was executed
between plaintiff No.1 and the landlord Gopinath Tare. The said
agreement contemplated Rs.50,000/- done by paying the Developer,
Navyuva Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha, Worli Koliwada, Worli,
Mumbai. The plaintiff No.1 had bills till 2013 pertaining to the suit
premises. Post redevelopment all meter bills were issued in the name of
plaintiff No.2. Since 2014 the rent receipts are issued in the name of
plaintiff till date.
7. The plaintiffs stated that in the month of July 2013 the
husband of defendant No.1 expired. The defendant No.1 requested
plaintiffs to permit her to keep paraphernalia used for fishing in the suit
premises around 2014. The plaintiffs allowed to defendant to use the
suit premises for that purpose. The defendant had two houses but she
rented one house for Rs.10,000/- per month. The plaintiffs never gave
the suit premises to occupy for residence. The plaintiff No.1 used to give
cash to defendant No.1. She used to deposit it in her account and issued
-- 3 of 17 --
..4.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
cheques for payment of electricity bills. The defendant was making her
own case to unlawfully and illegally seek rights in relation to the suit
premises.
8. The plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs desired to come back
to Mumbai and demanded possession in the end of 2017. The
defendant postponed to hand over the possession on one or the other
pretext. However she did not hand over the possession. In the
meantime son of defendant No.1 Jayesh had love marriage with one
Sonia Ragwan who is Police Sub-Inspector by profession. The daughter-
in-law bound to have suggested ways and means to take over the
premises.
9. The plaintiffs stated that the defendant No.1 has locked the
suit premises and installed cameras outside the premises. The defendant
No.1 monitors movements from watching the same from her own
house. The defendant No.1 with ulterior motive kept the plaintiffs
outside their own house and has rented out her own house to make
money therefrom. The defendant No.1 filed false and frivolous Suit
bearing No.68/2018 against plaintiffs. The plaintiff filed written
statement on 12th July 2018. The defendant No.1 preferred a Notice of
Motion No.434/2018 to seek relief against plaintiffs to restrain from
evicting her from suit premises. The plaintiffs filed affidavit-in-reply
dated 29th January 2018. The said Notice of Motion was dismissed by
order dated 03/04/2018. The defendant is not allowing the plaintiffs to
enter the suit premises. Hence prayed for possession and declaration.
10. The defendant No.1 filed written statement at Exh.04 and
denied the contents of allegations in the plaint in toto. The defendant
did not deny her relation with plaintiffs and that the original tenant was
their father Mr. Prabhu Raghu Wanjale. The defendant stated that in or
-- 4 of 17 --
..5.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
about October 1986 the defendant No.1 married. In January 1987 she
came with her husband and resided for two months at 85/A, Warlikar
Niwas, Opp. Ganesh Book Depot, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai 400 030.
The sister-in-law also resided in the same room although she was
married and her husband resided at their village. The sister-in-law
quarreled with the defendant and evicted her and her husband from the
said room. This defendant and her husband started to reside at the
original premises alongwith her father Mr. Prabhu Raghu Wanjale. In or
about 1990 Mr. Prabhu Raghu Wanjale went to Pune. The father Mr.
Prabhu Raghu Wanjale expired on 24/09/1972 at Pune. The defendant
was residing at the temporary premises alongwith her family.
11. The defendant stated that the defendant brought the
plaintiffs back to Mumbai at their request and they all resided in the
original premises in 1994. Plaintiff No.2 returned to Pune. The wife of
plaintiff No.1 tried to poison herself due to some dispute with plaintiff
No.1. Thereafter the defendant with her husband started to reside in a
nearby room. The plaintiff No.2 who was unmarried at that time shifted
back to Pune. The plaintiff No.1 shifted back to Pune in the year 2000.
Since then the temporarily premises is in possession of the defendant.
Many articles of defendant are lying in the temporary premises. The
landlord in the year 2013 undertook redevelopment and after
redevelopment the suit premises was handed over to her. Despite that
the plaintiff No.1 entered into Development Agreement dated
13/10/2013 with the landlord Mr. Tare behind the back of this
defendant and without her permission. Both the plaintiffs permanently
reside in Pune therefore there was no question of their names being on
the documents related to the suit premises. The plaintiffs tried to
-- 5 of 17 --
..6.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
dispossess defendant therefore filed suit against them. The Notice of
Motion was dismissed by order dated 03/04/2018.
12. The defendant stated that the plaintiff and defendant No.2
already got their share from the property of their father Mr. Prabhu
Raghu Wanjale. The defendant has only the suit premises. The
defendant has right to succeed the suit premises. The defendant is in
possession of the suit premises since two decades. The suit is barred by
limitation. The suit is not correctly valued. Hence prayed to dismiss the
suit.
13. The defendant No.2 was duly served by he failed to appear
hence suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant No.2 as per roznama
dated 24/11/2022.
14. On the basis of above pleading of the parties my
Predecessor framed issues at Exh.07. The reasons with findings thereon
are as under :-
Sr.No. ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Do plaintiffs prove that they are the lawful
owner of the suit premises ?
No.
2 Do plaintiff prove that the defendants
illegally and un-authorizedly obtained
possession of suit premises ?
No.
3. Have plaintiffs properly valued this suit and
paid proper Court Fees ?
Yes.
4. Are plaintiffs entitled for decree of
declaration and injunction as sought for ?
The parties have to
get themselves
declared as tenant.
-- 6 of 17 --
..7.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
5. Are plaintiffs entitled for decree of
possession and mesne profits as sought
for ?
(i) The parties
have to get
themselves
declared as tenant.
(ii) Not entitled
for mense profit.
6. What Order and decree? Suit is dismissed.
R E A S O N S
15. Heard Advocate Mr. Rishabh Shah for Plaintiff and
Advocate Mr. Makrand Bokare for defendant no. 1. I have gone through
the written arguments filed by both the parties.
16. The plaintiff Govind Prabhu Wanjale has adduced evidence
at Exh.08. The plaintiff is thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of
defendants. The plaintiff has relied on the documents i.e. (i) Exh.11 Sr.
No.1, page No.1, Annexure No.1 - Original death certificate of Mrs.
Muktabai dtd.16.01.2006, (ii) Exh.12 Sr. No.2, page No.2, Annexure
No.2 - Original death certificate of Mr. Prabhu Wanjale dtd.24.09.1992,
(iii) Exh.13 Sr. No.3, page No.3, Annexure No.3 - Original election
commission card bearing the name and address of my brother i.e.
Plaintiff No. 1, (iv) Exh.14 Sr. No.4, page No.4, Annexure No.4 -
Original election commission card bearing Plaintiff No.1 wife’s name i.e.
Geeta Shankar Wanjale, (v) Exh.15 Colly. Sr. No.5, page no.5 to 33,
Annexure No.5 Colly. - Original electricity bills are some electricity bills
from 1994 to 2013, (vi) Exh.16 Sr. No.6, page No.34, Annexure No.6 -
Xerox copy of driving license dtd.24.12.1997 of Plaintiff No. 1 showing
the permanent address of the Plaintiff No.1, (vii) Exh.17 Sr. No.7, page
No.35 to 40, Annexure No.7 - Copy of the Development Agreement dtd.
-- 7 of 17 --
..8.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
13/08/2013, (viii) Exh.18 Sr. No.8, page No.41 to 54, Annexure No.8
Colly. - Original electricity bills from 2017 along-with the original
Statement of Electricity Bill starting from January 2020 – March 2024,
(ix) Exh.19 Colly. Sr. No.9, page No.55 to 57, Annexure No.9 Colly. -
Original rent receipts from 2014 till date, (x) Exh.20 Sr. No.11, page
No.61 to 70, Annexure No.11 – Original letter along-with its annexure
and the postal receipt, (xi) Exh.21 Sr. No.12, page No.71, Annexure
No.12 – Copy of the order dtd.25.02.2020, (xii) Exh.22 Colly. Sr. No.13,
page No.72 to 79, Annexure No.13 – The photographs of the closed
circuit camera installed on the entrance of the suit premises along-with
65-B certificate.
17. The defendants did not examine any witness and filed
pursis to close the evidence at Exh.27.
18. On perusal of evidence of the plaintiff the contents of
examination-in-chief by way of affidavit is as per the contents of the
plaint. The defendant in the cross-examination have brought on record
that at present he is residing at 8/5, Navrang Society, Sainagar,
Mhamurdi, Dehu Road, Pune since from last 13 to 14 years. He is
working in public sector company namely Exide Industries Ltd. office at
Chinchwad, Pune. His marriage took place at Pune.
19. In the cross-examination it is brought on record that
plaintiff No. 1 resides at Survey No. 44, Hanuman Nagar, Paud Road,
Arendawane, Pune and he is Rickshaw Driver. Plaintiff No.1 resided at
Mumbai for considerable period and then shifted to Pune. He was 11
years old in the year 1983 and plaintiff No.1 was 13 years old. He
admitted that, in the year 1983 they were attending school and in the
year 1983, his father was the only earning member of their family. The
house wherein plaintiff No. 1 is residing was built by his father. He
-- 8 of 17 --
..9.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
admitted that one portion from the said house was sold by his family
members jointly. They did not consult their sister defendant No.1 when
they sold the said portion of their house in the year 2000 to 2002 for a
consideration of Rs.60,000/-.
20. It is brought on record in the cross that plaintiff No. 1 were
taking education at Shankarrao More Vidyalay, when they were residing
at Hanuman Nagar, Pune. He took admission in 7th Standard at
Shankarrao More Vidyalay and plaintiff No.1 took admission in 8th
Standard. He do not remember the exact year of our admission at
Shankarrao More Vidyalay. He passed matriculation in the year 1988-
89. He admitted that his father died intestate. He admitted that, in the
suit property his father was the original tenant and one Gopinath
Harishchandra Tare is shown as landlord and plaintiff No. 1 is shown as
tenant of the suit property in Exh.17.
21. It is brought on record in the cross-examination that they
do not have document to show their ownership over the suit property.
Witness voluntarily said that they are having the rent receipts of suit
property. He admitted that Exh.17 does not bear his and defendant
no.1’s signature. He do not know that at the time of execution of
agreement Exh.17 defendant No. 1 was not informed by his brother
plaintiff No. 1. He admitted that, Suit property as described in para 5 of
the plaint is having ground plus 2 floors building. He know that on the
ground floor of House No. 57 there are 5 rooms. He do not know how
many rooms are there on the first and second floor of the said building.
He admitted that, in house No. 57 different families are residing on
each floors in different rooms and House No.57 is owned by Tare family.
22. In the cross-examination it is further brought on record that
examination-in-chief is prepared by his advocate as per his instructions
-- 9 of 17 --
..10.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
in his presence. The address mentioned in the evidence affidavit is
where he took education and he is residing in rented premises. He
admitted that, after sell of portion of our house in the year 2002, he
started residing in rented premises. He did not inform to his advocate
that the address mentioned in his examination-in-chief is not correct
one. He admitted that, in his examination-in-chief at para 9 it is
wrongly mentioned that the agreement was executed in between him
and Mr. Gopinath Tare. the rent receipts are not in my name. In his
examination-in-chief it is wrongly mentioned that rent receipts are
issued by Hari Ganga Nivas in my name. The Exh.19 rent receipts bears
signature of landlord Nandkumar Tare and signature of plaintiff No. 1
as tenant. He admitted that, it is wrongly mentioned in his examination-
in-chief Para 9 that rent receipts are signed by him. He denied that, he
intentionally recorded false averments in his examination-in-chief.
23. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is
also brought on record that both the plaintiffs took their education in
Pune. They are residing in Pune for considerable period of time.
As to Issue No.1 :-
24. Advocate Shri Makrand Bokare for defendant No.1 argued
that plaintiffs are claiming title to the suit premises and declare them as
owner. In the cross-examination of PW-1 they have brought on record
that suit premises is tenanted premises and the owner of the suit
premises is Mr. Gopinath Harishchandra Tare. They do not have
document to show that they are owners of the suit premises. Therefore
the suit of the plaintiffs itself is not maintainable. The admission of the
plaintiffs shows that the title is not with them. The court cannot grant
the declaration of ownership. Therefore the suit deserves to be
dismissed.
-- 10 of 17 --
..11.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
25. Advocate Shri Rishabh Shah for plaintiff argued that they
are not disputing that the original owner of the suit premises is Mr.
Gopinath Harishchandra Tare. The suit premises is tenanted premises.
The original tenant was their father. Thereafter the same was in the
name of plaintiff No.1 who executed Development Agreement dated
13/10/2013. The suit premises was given to the defendant No.1 only
for limited use but she failed to hand over the suit premises when
plaintiffs were in need. Advocate for plaintiffs argued that even though
they are not the owners but they are entitled for the possession of the
suit premises as the defendants have forcibly kept away the plaintiffs
from the suit premises of which they are the tenants.
26. The plaintiffs in the prayer clause para 29(a) has prayed
that “that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Plaintiffs are the
lawful owners and have title to the property namely House no.57, Valmiki Chowk,
Worli, Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai – 400 030.”
27. It is admitted that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit
premises. It is owned by Mr. Gopinath Harishchandra Tare. Therefore
the above declaration of ownership and title to the suit premises cannot
be granted. Hence Issue no.1 is answered in negative.
As to Issue No.2 to 5 :-
28. The pleading of both the parties shows that in the suit
premises the original tenant was their father who expired on
24/09/1992. The death certificate Exh.12 shows that the father expired
at Pune having permanent address as S. No. 44, Hanuman Nagar,
Erandwane, Pune – 35.
29. The development agreement with plaintiff No.1 is executed
on 13/10/2013 Exh.17. It is in between plaintiff No.1 as tenant, the
landlord Mr. Gopinath Harishchandra Tare and the Developer Girish
-- 11 of 17 --
..12.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
Yeshwant Kothare. All the documents i.e. electricity bills, rent receipts
and other identity documents of plaintiffs show the address of the suit
premises.
30. It is the case of the plaintiffs that he has given the suit
premises to defendant No.1 only for use around 2014 after death of her
husband to keep paraphernalia used for fishing. The plaintiff no.1 and 2
desire to come back to Mumbai during 2017. They requested the
defendant No.1 to hand over the possession but it was delayed on one
or the other occasion. The defendant No.1 has locked the suit premises
and installed camera outside the premises with malafide motive and has
installed camera and monitors any movement from her own house. She
is not allowing the plaintiffs to enter the suit premises.
31. On going through the cross-examination the defendant did
not cross-examine the PW-1 on the above point as well as on the point
of the documents. The case of the defendant is that after she got
married as she only resided for two month at 85/A, Warlikar Niwas,
Opp. Ganesh Book Depot, Worli Koliwada, Mumbai – 400 030.
Therefore she started residing with her father who went to reside to
Pune in or about 1990. The father expired at Pune. She further stated
that she was residing with plaintiff No.1 in the suit premises. However
the dispute arose with the wife of plaintiff No.1. Hence started residing
at other place near to the suit property with her family.
32. The defendant did not enter the witness box to prove the
above facts. The plaintiffs have admitted her possession but on the
ground that it was given by them to her only for use in the year 2014.
The defendant No.1 filed suit bearing No.68/2018 however the said suit
was not pursued by the defendant therefore it was dismissed.
33. The plaintiff has relied on the rent receipts filed vide Exh
19(colly) are in the name of Shankar Prabhu Wanjale i.e. Plaintiff No.1
-- 12 of 17 --
..13.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
dated 17/05/2017, 07/01/2018, 04/03/2019, 15/02/2019 and
16/04/2014. There is no rent receipt filed on record after death of the
father in the year 1992. The plaintiff no.1 claims to be the tenant of the
suit premises. The basis of his tenancy is that he was residing in the suit
premises and the development agreement is executed in the name of
plaintiff No.1 in the year 2013. There is dispute between the parties in
respect of the tenancy of the suit premises. The defendants in the cross-
examination have brought on record that the plaintiffs were residing in
Pune. The father of the defendant expired in the year 1992 at Pune.
34. The plaintiffs have relied on the documents to show that
they were residing in the suit premises but the said documents i.e.
electricity bills i.e. from October 1994 in the name of plaintiff No.1 in
between two years period of death there is no document to show that
both the plaintiffs resided in the suit premises with the deceased. On
the contrary the deceased expired in Pune.
35. The advocate for plaintiff has relied ratio of authority
reported in Anita Sharma And Others vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171. The facts of case is
under Motor Vehicles Act. The principle relied is about the object of cross-
examination. In the facts there was no cross-examination of the eye witness despite
advocate opportunity. Therefore it was held must lead to interference of tacit
admission of testimony of such witness. In the present facts of the case the defendant
has cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff though to the limited strength but it is
for the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint. The burden of proof is entirely
upon the plaintiff.
36. It is not always necessary for defendant to enter the witness
box. He/She can put up his/her defence through cross-examination of
plaintiff’s witnesses.
37. Considering the above facts of the case the defendant No.1
is disputing that the plaintiffs were residing in the suit premises at the
-- 13 of 17 --
..14.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
time of death of deceased father. Even the plaintiffs are disputing the
residence of the defendant No.1 in the suit premises. The appropriate
remedy to plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 being legal heir of
deceased Prabhu Raghu Wanjale after his death to get one of them
declared as tenant u/s.7(15)(d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(previously Bombay Rent Control Act) that legal heirs do not
automatically inherit tenancy rights upon a tenant's death. Succession
depends on residing with or using the premises with the tenant at the
time of death.
38. The Family members (spouse, parents, children) residing
there inherit first; other legal heirs only inherit if no family member was
in occupation. The term "tenant" includes family members residing with
the tenant (residential) or using the premises for business/trade
(commercial) at the time of death. If there is a dispute among legal
heirs, the Court decides based on the agreement and who was using the
premises at the time of death.
39. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs showing the cause of action
that they have given the suit premises to the defendant No.1 only for
use. The parties have to approach the appropriate court to claim the
tenancy right in the suit premises after death of the father. Therefore I
hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of possession as
claimed. The parties have not approached appropriate authority to get
themselves declared as tenant after death of their father. Therefore it
cannot be said that the possession of the defendant No.1 is illegal and
unauthorized. Hence issue no.2 is answered in negative.
40. The defendants have stated that the plaintiffs have not paid
proper court fees. On perusal of the plaint the objection was raised by
the Registry which was complied by the plaintiff and thereafter the suit
was registered. The plaintiffs in para no.27 has specifically stated that
-- 14 of 17 --
..15.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
“the plaintiff values the prayer clause (a) and (b) Rs.50,000/- approx., each and
thereon suit for the purpose of the Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.50,000/- of the
Bombay Court Fees Act and the Court Fees are paid Rs.5000/- accordingly. The
plaintiffs suit property is tenanted paid monthly rent of Rs.205/- therefore valued
150 times therefore paid court fees of Rs.5000/-.”
41. The defendant has only raised objection about non
payment of proper court fee, but did not dispute the above amount paid
by the plaintiff. There is no cross-examination to the witness of the
plaintiff on the above point. The plaintiff when the objection was raised
for payment of proper court fee has affixed the court fee. Hence I hold
that plaintiffs have properly valued the suit and paid proper court fee
stamp is paid by the plaintiff and answer issue no.3 in positive.
42. The defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit with
cost. However the defendant is on the same footing wherein she cannot
claim the right in the suit premises unless the said right is got decided
by the appropriate court when there is dispute between the legal heirs
about their right of tenancy after death of father. Hence she is not
entitled for the cost.
43. The plaintiffs are not owners of the suit property. The
plaintiffs and defendants are real brothers and sisters. The suit property
was originally owned by their father. Therefore the plaintiffs have to
approach the appropriate authority to resolve their dispute. On the basis
of agreement of 2013 with the developer and the rent receipt in the
name of plaintiff no.1 cannot claim to have inherited the tenancy rights.
Therefore the question of mesne profit will not arise. The plaintiffs are
not entitled for reliefs claimed by them unless there is appropriate order
of declaring tenancy after death of their father in the year 1992.
Accordingly answeringly issue no.4 & 5 and pass the following order :-
-- 15 of 17 --
..16.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
ORDER
1. Suit is dismissed.
2. The parties to bear their own cost.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Smt. S.S. Nagur)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Date : 27.03.2026 Gr. Mumbai.
Pronounced on : 27.03.2026
Directly dictated on PC : 27.03.2026
Typed on : 27.03.2026
Checked & Signed on : 04.04.2026
-- 16 of 17 --
..17.. Judgment in S.C.Suit No.1060/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
Mrs. Manisha S. Putta	04.04.2026 5.45 PM
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ Smt.S.S.Nagur (C.R.No. 62)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
27.03.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
04.04.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 04.04.2026
-- 17 of 17 --