Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
Received on : 29.1.2020
Registered on : 05.2.2020
Decided on : 11.3.2021
Duration : Y :01 M: 01 D: 11
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Misc. Appeal No.2 of 2020
(CNR No.MHCC010011942020)
Shri Vishal Shishupal Sawant
Aged about 34 years, Occ: Service
Boudh, Indian Inhabitant,
Permanently residing at
Room No.16, B.D.D. Chawl No.88
Worli, Mumbai 400 018 ..Appellant
V/s.
1. The Competent Authority for Greater
Mumbai,
404, Old Custom House, 4th floor,
Mumbai Dist. Mumbai 400 001
2. The Manager, B.D.D. Chawl
having office at B.D.D.Chawl No.48,
Worli, Dr. G.M.Bhosle Marg,
Mumbai 400 018
3. Shri Amit Sunil Sorte
aged about 30 years,
Boudh permanently residing at
Room No.23, B.D.D.Chawl No.94,
Worli, Mumbai 400 018 ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S.B.AGRAWAL (C.R. No.19)
Dated : 11th March, 2021
Page 1 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 1 of 6 --
Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
Adv. Shri Bhimrao Powar for the appellant.
Adv. Shri M.B.Jadhav for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Adv. Shri Rahul Matkar for respondent No.3.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Order passed by the Competent Authority under The Bombay
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 on 13.1.2020 thereby
directing eviction of the appellant from the subject premises namely
Room No.16, Chawl No.88, B.D.D. Chawl, Worli, Mumbai400 018 is
assailed in the present appeal.
2. Facts material for the disposal of this appeal are as under:
It is not disputed by both the sides that one Smt. Vaijayanta
Tukaram Kharate was the tenant in the subject premises. The appellant
as well as Respondent No.3 are laying claim over the subject premises
on the basis of them being relatives of Smt. Vaijayanta Kharate and also
on the basis of the fact that their respective predecessors as well as they
themselves used to reside in the subject premises with the original
tenant.
(ii) Subsequently on the basis of documents of the original tenant
submitted by the father of Respondent No.3 to the Competent
Authority, the tenancy of the premises came to be transferred in the
name of father of Respondent No.3 and thereafter on the basis
documents submitted by Respondent No.3, executed by his father, the
tenancy has been transferred in the name of Respondent No.3 in the
year 2015.
Page 2 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 2 of 6 --
Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
(iii) It has been contended by the appellant that original tenant was
the aunt of his mother and that during her lifetime, the appellant’s
mother was staying alongwith the original tenant as also the appellant
was staying in the subject premises and as such, by producing Aadhar
Card, appointment orders, death certificate of mother of the appellant,
Local MLA certificate, Gazette showing change of name, telephone bills,
M.S.E.B. Bills and Ration Card, it is claimed by the appellant that he
was all along with his mother was residing in the subject premises and
as such, his possession could not have been said to be unauthorized.
3. It is in this narrow controversy that the following points arise for
my consideration and my findings thereon for the reasons thereof are as
under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the appellant is in unauthorized
occupation of the subject premises?
..In the affirmative
2. Whether the impugned order warrants
interference in appeal?
..In the negative.
3. What Order? ..As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Point nos.1 and 2:
4. At the outset, it would be apposite to mention that assuming for
the sake of argument, that all the documents submitted by the appellant
are valid, even then, these documents at best show that the mother of
the appellant was residing in the premises alonwith the original tenant
for a substantial period of time being her relative. But then being in
occupation is one thing and being in authorized occupation is another
Page 3 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 3 of 6 --
Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
thing.
5. It is also contended by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the
documents on the basis of which, Respondent No.2 has transferred the
tenancy were never executed by the original tenant and that these
documents were sham and bogus. An affidavit in this appeal has been
filed of one Shri Milind Shivram Kamble who claims to be nephew of
original tenant and he has made a bald statement that the documents of
the original tenant submitted by Respondent No.3 and his father are
false and bogus. But then same is not of any avail to the present
appellant, since this Court is examining the legality and validity of the
order impugned which states that the appellant is in unauthorized
occupation of the subject premises. So, what is required to be
ascertained is whether the appellant has made out his case of
authorized occupation of the subject premises?
6. In this regard, even if the contentions as aforesaid raised by the
appellant are taken at their face value, it cannot be said that
Respondent No.2 had executed any document at any point of time in
favour of the present appellant so as to render his occupation over the
premises as authorized. Furthermore, it cannot at all be lost sight of
that Respondent No.2 transferred the premises in the name of father of
Respondent No.3 way back in the year 1996 i.e. almost 25 years ago
and thereafter it has been transferred in the name of Respondent No.3
in the year 2015. The appellant at no point of time, challenged this
transfer of tenancy before any authority or Court of Law and only for
the first time when he is sought to be evicted from the subject premises
Page 4 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 4 of 6 --
Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
that he has raised this contention.
7. It is also submitted before me that Respondent No.3 and his
father continued in the premises all throughout and only when they
were forcibly evicted from the premises in year 2017 that present
proceedings were initiated and order impugned came to be passed. Be
that as it may, the Competent Authority has considered all the
contentions raised by the present appellant before him and has found
that the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises.
8. In the aforesaid set of acts, I do not find any illegality in the
findings warranting interference in the appeal. As such, I answer points
accordingly and pass following order:
ORDER
Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2020 stands dismissed.
Sd/
11.3.2021 (S.B.AGRAWAL)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 11.3.2021
Transcribed on : 11.3.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 11.3.2021
Page 5 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 5 of 6 --
Vishal Shishupal Sawant Vs. Competent Authority and Anr.
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.
12.3.2021 (4.33 p.m.)
DATE AND TIME B.S.Parab
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
No.)
H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
11.3.2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11.3.2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 12.3.2021
Page 6 of 6
11th March, 2021
-- 6 of 6 --