Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
MISC APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2020
Mrs.Clara L. Fernandes (Deleted),
1. Ms.Mary L. Fernandes,
2. Mr.Benedict Fernandes, ... Applicants
Versus
1. The Estae Officer For Air India,
2. Air India Limited. ... Respondents
CORAM: H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S. B. AGRAWAL( C.R.No.19)
DATED: 20th FEBRUARY, 2021
Adv.Mr.Deepak Prabhu, CA of Applicants,
Adv. Lncy D'souza,
for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
Delay of 2005 days in preferring an appeal against the order
passed by the Estate Officer on 15th September, 2014 thereby directing
eviction of the original applicant Mrs.C.P. Fernandes from Flat No.8,
Building No.4/8/A in the Air India 1st Staff Housing Colony at Kalina,
Santacruz(E), Mumbai is sought to be condoned by the present
application.
2. It is contended in the application that although the order was
passed on 15/09/2014, it was affixed on the door of the original
applicant on 29/01/2020 and that the applicant had no means to file
the appeal and pay fees of the advocate and as such they had
approached respondent no.2 with a request to look into the matter,
1 of 4
20/02/2021
-- 1 of 4 --
Ms.Mary L. Fernandes & Anr. V. Estate Officer & Anr.
however no heed was paid to the request. It is also contended that the
appellant is a poor person having no means to support herself except
her son and that the respondents assured her to transfer the premises in
her name and as such she did not prefer an appeal and thereafter a
notice was sent by the respondents seeking execution of the order dated
15/09/2014 and as such the appeal has been filed.
3. Respondents have filed reply contesting the application and
denied adverse allegations therein. It is specifically contended that the
eviction order was sent for service upon the original applicant along
with letter dated 30th September/10th October, 2014. The letter was
accepted by the original applicant but acknowledgment was refused and
as such the said letter was posted by registered post and the postal
acknowledgment is produced on record. It appears from the documents
filed by the applicants that the original applicant had contested the
eviction proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and the witness of the
respondents was also cross-examined.
4. Thus, to contend that the original applicant had no knowledge
about the impugned order until 29/01/2020 cannot be accepted. As far
as other contentions are concerned, the same are quite general and
vague in nature. It cannot be accepted that the respondents have
assured the original applicant to transfer the ownership of the flat in her
favour when it is not disputed position that the husband of the original
applicant was the employee of Air India and in that capacity the subject
premises were allotted to him and that he retired in the year 1984.
Thereafter, the original applicant, who is the wife and the present
2 of 2
20/02/2021
-- 2 of 4 --
Ms.Mary L. Fernandes & Anr. V. Estate Officer & Anr.
applicants who are children, continued to stay in the subject premises.
During the pendancy of the present proceedings even the wife has
passed away.
5. The delay sought to be condoned is of substantial longer period
and there appears to be no reason sufficient enough to condone the
same that has been made out in the present application. In such
circumstances, I pass following order.
O R D E R
Misc.Application No.25 of 2020 stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S. B. AGRAWAL)
20/02/2020 PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 20/02/2020
Transcribed on : 20/02/2020
Signed by HHJ on : 20/02/2020
3 of 3
20/02/2021
-- 3 of 4 --
Ms.Mary L. Fernandes & Anr. V. Estate Officer & Anr.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
22/02/2021 11.45AM B.R.HATEKAR S.G.
Name of the Judge HH PRINCIPAL JUDGE (CR No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 20/02/2021
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 20/02/2021
Judgment/order uploaded on 22/02/2021
4 of 4
20/02/2021
-- 4 of 4 --