Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Delay appln.141.18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Delay Application No.141 of 2018
Vasant S. Masane ..Applicant
V/s.
Amar S. Kamble & anr. ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 16th July, 2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Akshay Kamble for applicant.
Advocate Mr.B.A. Powar for respondent no.1.
Advocate Mr.M.B. Jadhav for respondent no.2.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
The applicant prays to condone the delay of 130 days in
order to prefer an appeal against the order of inquiry officer dated 22nd
September,2017 in inquiry no.EVC/796/2017.
2 I have heard ld.counsels Mr.Kamble for applicant,
Mr.Powar for respondent no.1 and Mr.Jadhav for respondent no.2.
3 Admittedly, the applicant was not the party to the inquiry
proceeding before the competent authority. He claims to be aggrieved
by the impugned order. He states that he is the ClassII heir of late
Shri. Krishna Masanethe original tenant of the inquiry premises. After
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Delay appln.141.18
the death of the Shri. Krishna Masane, the tenancy was inherited to his
wife Smt.Hirabai Masane. Smt.Hirabai Masane expired on 23rd
April,2008. The respondent no.1, the son of the brother of the said
Hirabai forged and fabricated the documents and got the inquiry
premises transferred in his name.
4 The applicant further states that on his complaint, the
inquiry proceeding was held against the respondent no.1 and an order
of eviction dated 12th April,2016 came to be passed. The impugned
order was challenged in the Misc.Appeal No.41/2016. The predecessor
of this court set aside the impugned order by judgment dated 8th
August,2016, remanded back the matter for reconsideration after giving
opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.1. The Competent
Authority this time reached to the conclusion that the transfer in the
name of the respondent no.1 has been validly made and thereby closed
the inquiry proceeding.
5 The present applicant, sought to challenge the impugned
order and requests the court to condone the delay of 130 days in filing
the appeal. The reason for delay he says, he being a senior citizen,
consumed time in obtaining copy of the order under RTI Act and
thereafter engaging lawyer etc.
6 The respondents strongly opposed the application firstly on
the ground that the present applicant was not a party before the inquiry
officer. Secondly, this court has no jurisdiction to decide the tenancy
rights inter se between the parties.
7 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Delay appln.141.18
the parties. At the outset, before deciding on the point of delay, in my
opinion, it would be appropriate to decide the competency of the
Competent authority to decide the issue raised by the applicant about
his right to inherit the property of late Hirabai Masane.
8 The applicant claims to be the ClassII heir of late
Smt.Hirabai Masane. He claims that he is son of the brother of the
original owner late Shri.Krishna Masane while the respondent no.1 is
the son of brother of Smt.Hirabai Masane. He feels aggrieved by the
order of the inquiry officer holding that the documents of transfer are
not fabricated and therefore, the respondent no.1 is not liable to be
evicted. The scope before the inquiry officer is only to decide as to
whether the possession of the premises is authorized one or not.
9 In the instant case, the inquiry proceeding against the
present respondent no.1 was initiated on the complaint received from
the present applicant alleging fabrication of transfer documents. On the
said ground, the order of eviction was passed. The present applicant
claims to be the ClassII heir. For want of jurisdiction, the declaration
as to ClassII heir can not be passed by the inquiry officer. The forum of
the competent authority would not be the proper forum to decide the
rights, title and interest of the parties as regards the inquiry premises.
Even presuming that the appeal is admitted by this court by condoning
delay, this court at the most can set aside the order and remand it
directing the competent authority to give opportunity of hearing to the
applicant. The competent authority could not have decided conclusively
the issue regarding the fabrication of the documents and legal heir ship
between the parties. In such circumstances, no purpose would be served
in coming before this forum. I am not inclined to admit the appeal and
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Delay appln.141.18
therefore no question of condoning the delay. Hence, I pass the
following order:
O R D E R
Delay Application No.141/18 stands rejected.
16/07/2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 16/07/2018
Transcribed on : 16/07/2018
Signed by HHJ on :
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Delay appln.141.18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 18/07/2018 (At 5.00 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V.GANEDIWALA(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 16th July,2018
Order signed by P.O. on 18th June,2018
Order uploaded on 18th July,2018
-- 5 of 5 --