Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Presented on 25/01/2018
Registered on 22/03/2018
Decided on 07/02/2019
Duration Yrs. M. Days
00 10 17
CNR No. MHCC010014302018
EXH.25
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 860 OF 2018
1. Shri PARSHURAM RANOJI PATIL )
Aged about 70 years, )
Occupation : Retired. )
2. Smt. SULOCHANA PARSHURAM PATIL )
Aged about 68 years, )
Occupation : Housewife, )
Both plaintiffs are residing at : )
Room No.216, )
2nd Floor, 273279, )
Bhandari Chawl & 283Vanjari Chawl, )
Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, )
Saatrasta, )
Mumbai – 400 011. )...Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Shri SATISH PARSHURAM PATIL )
Aged about 35 years, )
Occupation : Service. )
-- 1 of 7 --
Judgment .. 2 .. Suit No.860/18
2. Shri SURESH PARSHURAM PATIL )
Aged about 38 years, )
Occupation : Service. )
3. Shri SANTOSH PARSHURAM PATIL )
Aged about 38 years, )
Occupation : Service. )
All defendants are residing at : )
Room No.216, )
2nd Floor, 273279, )
Bhandari Chawl & 283Vanjari Chawl, )
Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, )
Saatrasta, )
Mumbai – 400 011. )...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv. Mr. S.R. Gupta for plaintiffs.
None for defendants No.1 to 3.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SADRUDDIN A. QUAZI
(C.R.No.04)
DATED : 7th February, 2019.
: J U D G M E N T :
The plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have sued for the relief of declaration that
the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have no right in the suit property and also for
injunction restraining them from entering into suit premises.
2. The plaintiff's case may be stated as under :
The plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are their sons. The plaintiffs were in occupation of
the premises bearing room No.6, situated on ground floor of 283,
-- 2 of 7 --
Judgment .. 3 .. Suit No.860/18
Shankar Vanzari Chawl, now known as Noor Manzil, situated at Sane
Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Saatrasta, Mumbai11. Plaintiff No.1 was
tenant thereof. The said old property was demolished and then, it was
redeveloped. After redevelopment, permanent alternate accommodation
has been provided to the plaintiff No.1. It bears room No.216, situated
at 2nd Floor at 273279, Bhandari Chawl and 283Vanjari Chawl, Sane
Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Saatrasta, Mumbai11, as described in
paragraph No.3 of the plaint. This is suit premises. According to the
plaintiffs, they are the legal and lawful occupiers of the suit premises as
per the allotment letter, possession letter given by MHADA and
electricity bill, ration card etc. also stand in the name of the plaintiff
No.1. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit premises.
It is submitted that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are trying to dispossess the
plaintiff illegally, whereas, defendant No.3 is looking after the plaintiffs
and plaintiffs have no grievance against defendant No.3. But, he is
impleaded as appropriate party. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs
have requested to grant the aforesaid reliefs against the defendant
Nos.1 & 2.
3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have been served with the writ of
summons, but they have failed to appear and to file written statement
and, therefore, the suit is proceeded exparte against them.
4. The plaintiffs have adduced their evidence by examining PW1
i.e. plaintiff No.1 Parshuram Patil at exhibit4. The plaintiffs have also
produced the documents at exhibit6 to 22. They are as under.
-- 3 of 7 --
Judgment .. 4 .. Suit No.860/18
Particulars of Documents filed by plaintiffs vide Exh.5 Exhibit
No.
Original rent receipt No.883 standing in the name of
plaintiff No.1.
7
Zerox copy of Electricity Bill of the said original tenanted
premises.
8
Zerox copy of Ration Card of the said original tenanted
premises.
9
Original Allotment Letter dated 22.03.2011 in respect of
the suit premises issued by MHADA standing in the name
of plaintiff No.1.
10
Original Taba Pauti dated 18.04.2011 in respect of the suit
premises issued by MHADA standing in the name of
plaintiff No.1.
11
Original Possession Letter dated 19.04.2011 in respect of
the suit premises issued by MHADA standing in the name
of plaintiff No.1.
12
Original Electricity Bill of the suit premises. 13
Copy of Ration Card No. SD0305/84. 14
Carbon copy of N.C. Complaint No.2084 dated 15.12.2017. 15
Copy of Senior Citizen Card of plaintiff No.1. 16
Copy of Senior Citizen Card of plaintiff No.2. 17
Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1. 18
Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2. 19
Carbon copy of N.C. Complaints dated 13.08.2017 and
04.09.2017 filed by the plaintiff No.1 with police against
defendant Nos.1 and 2.
20
Carbon copy of N.C. Complaints dated 13.08.2017 and
04.09.2017 filed by the plaintiff No.1 with police against
defendant Nos.1 and 2.
21
Office copy of Written Complaint dated 03.08.2017
addressed by Adv. Of the plaintiff to the police with postal
receipt of Speed Post A/D and Postal acknowledgment of
Speed Post A/D.
22
-- 4 of 7 --
Judgment .. 5 .. Suit No.860/18
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate of
the plaintiffs. Following points arise for determination, on which I
record my findings as under, for the reasons to follow :
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiffs have proved that
they have lawful right to occupy the suit
premises and defendant Nos.1 & 2 have
no right, whatsoever ?
In Affirmative
2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
injunction restraining the defendant
Nos.1 & 2 from entering into the suit
premises ?
In Affirmative
3 What order and decree ? The suit is decreed as per
final order
: R E A S O N S :
AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 3 :
5. As noted herein earlier, the defendants have not filed written
statement to oppose the aforesaid claim of the plaintiffs. The evidence
of PW1 is as per the pleadings in the plaint, which I have noted herein
earlier elaborately. Evidence of PW1 shows that there was original old
premises in occupation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 was tenant
thereof. The said old premises has been demolished and alternate
accommodation has been provided to the plaintiff in lieu of the old
premises. This alternate accommodation is the suit premises. The
property has been allotted in the name of the plaintiff No.1. This is
supported by the documents produced by the plaintiffs, particularly the
allotment letter exhibit10, possession receipt exhibit11, original
possession letter dated 19.04.2011 exhibit12 in the name of the
plaintiff No.1. These documents were issued by the authority of
-- 5 of 7 --
Judgment .. 6 .. Suit No.860/18
MHADA. The plaintiffs have also produced original electricity bill
pertaining to the suit premises. It is also in the name of plaintiff No.1. In
the Ration Card, names of the defendants are mentioned, but that does
not prove that they have any right or interest in the suit premises, so as
to, harass the plaintiffs and to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit
premises. The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the defendants are
also residing in the suit premises, but as they do not have right and
interest in the suit premises, to stay any more in the suit premises. The
plaintiffs have requested to direct defendant Nos.1 & 2, not to enter into
the suit premises, but the relief as such, appears to be short of the relief
of direction to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 to remove themselves from the
suit premises and then, not to enter into it. Considering the
circumstances of the case, including that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are
allegedly harassing to the plaintiffs, who are lawful occupiers of the suit
premises, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 may be directed to remove
themselves from the suit premises within a prescribed period and,
thereafter, they may be directed not to interfere in the possession of the
plaintiffs. In these terms, the suit may be decreed and disposed off and,
accordingly, I have answered to the point Nos.1,2 and 3 and, I pass the
following order.
: O R D E R :
1. The suit is decreed as under :
(i) It is declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to occupy
the suit premises to the exclusion of the defendant Nos.1 & 2
and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have no right to stay in the suit
premises any more, without consent of the plaintiffs.
(ii) By mandatory direction, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are
directed to remove themselves from the suit premises, within
-- 6 of 7 --
Judgment .. 7 .. Suit No.860/18
six months from today and thereafter, defendant Nos.1 & 2
are directed not to enter in the suit premises without
permission or consent of the plaintiffs.
(iii) In these terms, the suit is disposed off accordingly.
2. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
(SADRUDDIN A. QUAZI)
Judge, (C.R.No.4)
Date : 07.02.2019. City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 07.02.2019.
Transcribed on : 08.02.2019.
Signed on : 08.02.2019.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
08.02.2019, at 3.09 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Tushar P. Kuwar
[NAME OF STENOGRAPER]
Name of the Judge
(With Court room no.)
HHJ Shri S. A. Quazi
Court Room No.4
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/order 07.02.2019.
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 08.02.2019.
Judgment/order uploaded on 08.02.2019.
-- 7 of 7 --