Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1
Received on : 16.04.2019*
Registered on : 23.04.2019
Decided on : 23.02.2022
Duration : Y:02 M:10 D:07
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Misc. Appeal No. 133 of 2019
(CNR No.MHCC010044882019)
Anil Visaria
Age: 45, Occupation : Business
At: 6 Shyamrao Vitthal Marg, ..Appellant
Lamington Road, Mumbai 7 (Org. Opponent No.2)
Versus
1. LIC Of India
a statutory corporation established
under the Central Act No.XXXI of 1956
having its Western Zonal Office at
'Yogakshsema' West Wing,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai 400021 (Org. Applicant.)
2. The Legal Heirs Of Shri D. N. Mhatre
(decd) Room No.1/2, Ground Floor,
Sita Chawl, New Badamwadi,
VP Road, Girgaum Mumbai 4 (Org. Opponent No.1)
3. Estate Officer
Western Zonal Office at
'Yogakhsema' West Wing,
Jeevan bima Marg,
Mumbai 400021 ..Respondents
Mr.S.R.Page, Ld.Advocate for appellant.
Mr.K.N.Kandekar,Ld. Advocate for respondent No.1/LIC
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
URMILA S. JOSHIPHALKE
(C.R.NO.19)
Dated : 23rd February, 2022
-- 1 of 32 --
2 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
JUDGMENT
By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the
order passed by the Estate Officer in Case No.3 & 3A of 2016 dt.
29.3.2019 by which opponent No.1 and his legal heirs and Opponent
No.2 are evicted from the application premises i.e. Room No.1/2,
Ground Floor, Sita Chawl, New Badamwadi, V.P. Road, Girgaum,
Mumbai 4 and also directed to pay damages alongwith interest. The
parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Applicant i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed
an application for eviction against opponents on the ground of
unauthorizedly subletting the application premises by opponent No.1 to
opponent No.2. As per the contention of the applicant/LIC, Life
Insurance Corporation is a Statutory Corporation established by an Act
of Parliament being the Central Act No. XXXI of 1956, called the Life
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The applicant is wholly owned by the
Central Government. Opponent No.1 are the legal heirs of late Shri
D.N.Mhatre. Late Shri D.N.Mhatre was the applicant's monthly tenant
and authorized occupant in respect of the premises situated at Sita
Building having tenancy Code No.3306 at New Badamwadi, V.P.Road,
Girgaum, Mumbai400 004. Said Sita Building is owned by the
applicant and covered under the definition of “Public Premises” within
the meaning of Sec. 2(e) of The Public Premises(Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It is contention of the applicant
that during inspection of the application premises carried out by the
applicant, Building Inspectors on various dates in the year 2011 and
2013, it was observed that the application premises was found locked.
Building Inspectors reports dt.14.7.2011, 4.8.2011, 7.9.2011,
-- 2 of 32 --
3
14.12.2011, 21.3.2013, 2.8.2013 and 13.12.2013 revealed that
deceased Shri D.N.Mhatre and his legal heirs had parted with possession
of the application premises to opponent No.2 who is presently
occupying the said premises as a godown for storing electronic items.
Recent Inspection Report dt. 8.10.2015 of the Building Inspector
revealed that only Room No.2 has been unlawfully parted with by
Opponent No.1 to Opponent No.2. Room No.1 of the application
premises is still in possession of original tenant and his legal heirs. Thus,
Opponent No.1 has allowed Opponent No.2 to use and occupy part of
the application premises for commercial purpose and also changed the
usage of the application premises from residential to commercial in
contravention of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. It is further
contention of the applicant that Opponent No.1 has also committed
default in payment of monthly rent. He is in arrears of rent since May,
2008. The applicant has filed on record the statement showing the
arrears of rent. Thus, opponents have committed clear breach of the
terms and conditions of tenancy
(ii) It is contention of the applicant/LIC that as opponent No.1
and his legal heirs committed violation of terms and conditions of
tenancy, the applicant issued Notice of Termination on 14.7.2015
through its Advocate and terminated the tenancy. The notice was duly
served on the opponents through R.P.A.D. The notices sent to the
opponents have been returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities
with the remark “Left”. The Notice of Termination was also pasted on
the conspicuous part of the application premises on 25.7.2015 and
pasting remarks are also filed on record. Thus, it is claimed that as
opponents have committed breach of tenancy, hence, they are liable to
be evicted from the application premises and therefore, the
-- 3 of 32 --
4 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
applicant/LIC constrained to file the application for eviction before the
Estate Officer.
(iii) Estate Officer has issued show cause notices to the
opponents on 9.11.2016. Said Show Cause notices are sent to Opponent
No.1 by Speed Post and hand delivery at the address of the application
premises which were returned undelivered. Show cause notices sent to
Opponent No.2 by Hand Delivery were served by the Building Inspector
at the shop address of Opponent No.2 as the application premises was
found locked. Show Cause notices sent to Opponent No.2 at the
application premises by Speed Post was served on Opponent No.2 by the
Postal Authorities on 16.11.2016 and pasting report is also on record.
(iv) In response to the said show cause notice, the legal heirs of
opponent No.1 failed to appear and contest the application. Opponent
No.2 appeared and filed written statement before Estate Officer.
Opponent No.2 denied that opponent No.1 has parted with possession
of the application premises to him. It is submitted by Opponent No.2
that both the rooms are presently with Opponent No.1. He is not aware
of any contravention of terms and conditions. It is further contended
that he is only caretaker of the said premises. He has also filed on record
additional written statement in addition to earlier written statement. It
is submitted that no direct notice is issued to him and therefore,
initiation of proceedings under The Public Premises Act is bad in law
and ought to be dismissed.
(v) Estate Officer has recorded the evidence, and after hearing
both the sides pleased to allow the eviction application. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Estate Officer, present
-- 4 of 32 --
5
appeal is preferred by Opponent No.2 on the ground that Estate Officer
has not appreciated the evidence properly and wrongly come to the
conclusion that Opponent No.1 has unauthorizedly parted with
possession of part of the application premises to him and he is using the
same as godown for storing electronic items and thereby changed the
usage of application premises from residential to commercial. The Estate
Officer has also failed to appreciate that termination notice is not
properly served on the opponents and therefore, entire proceedings is
bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is further contention of
Opponent No.2 that he is not at all liable to pay any damages. He is only
caretaker of the application premises. It is further submitted that Estate
Officer has wrongly relied upon the Inspection Reports and hence, the
order passed by the Estate Officer deserves to be set aside.
3. Heard Learned Advocate Shri S.R.Page for opponent
No.2/appellant. He submitted that present appeal is preferred by
Opponent No.2. During pendency of the present appeal, applicant/LIC
i.e. respondent No.1 herein has taken the forcible possession of the
application premises despite the fact that the application for stay was
pending for orders and thereby subjudice before this Court. It is further
submitted that Estate Officer ought to have seen that Valuer of the
applicant/LIC has not even entered in the said premises to check the
total area and condition of the application premises to evaluate the
actual damages and as per Rule 8 of The Public Premises Rules, the
nature, size and standard of the accommodation available in such
premises have to be inspected which has not been done, hence, the
valuation is incorrect. It is further submitted that witness of
applicant/LIC has admitted that there is no document with
applicant/LIC to show that the terms and conditions of tenancy as
-- 5 of 32 --
6 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
printed on rent bill have been agreed by Opponent No.1 i.e. the legal
heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre. Thus, no evidence has been brought on record
by the applicant/LIC to prove that opponent No.1 ever agreed to retain
user of the application premises only for a certain purpose.
Applicant/LIC has failed to prove that change of user was not permitted,
hence breach of such term of tenancy is also not proved by it and
therefore, the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer deserves to
be set aside. He further submitted that witness of the applicant/LIC has
admitted that Inspection Reports are incomplete and not based on exact
and complete inquiries but on his personal assessment. The Valuer has
also admitted during his crossexamination that market rent will be 5
10% less than rent calculated in the Valuation Report. Thus, entire
termination of tenancy is illegal. Hence, the termination of tenancy is
illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Learned Advocate Shri Kandekar for the
applicant/LIC submitted that LIC has filed application before the Estate
Officer for eviction of the opponents and recovery of arrears of rent and
for damages. The Composite Application was filed in respect of
residential/application premises being Room No.1/2, Ground Floor, Sita
Chawl Building, New Badamwadi, V.P.Road, Girgaum, Mumbai 400
004 admeasuring about 700 sq.ft. Carpet area belonging to
applicant/LIC. The application premises is Public Premises as defined
under Section 2(e) The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971. Deceased D.N.Mhatre was a monthly tenant and
authorized occupant in respect of the application premises. After demise
of Shri D.N.Mhatre, applicant/LIC by its various letters called upon the
legal heirs and representatives of Late Shri D.N.Mhatre to furnish their
names and addresses but there was no response from the legal heirs of
-- 6 of 32 --
7
Shri D.N.Mhatre. None of legal heirs of Late Shri D.N. Mhatre submitted
their names and addresses to the applicant. Meanwhile, opponent No.2
Shri Anil Visaria vide his letter dt.4.1.2016 informed the applicant/LIC
that he has occupied part of the application premises and submitted his
PAN, electricity bill in respect of the application premises with request
to applicant/LIC to transfer the application premises in his name.
Thereafter the Building Inspector of applicant/LIC visited the
application premises and found that Opponent No.2 is using the
application premises for storing electronic items. The application
premises was being used by the person with whom the applicant/LIC
had no privity of contract, the usage from residential to commercial was
changed, whereabouts of the legal heirs of deceased Shri D.N.Mhatre
were not known, deceased Shri D.N.Mhatre was in arrears of rent which
was against the tenancy terms and conditions and therefore,
applicant/LIC issued the Notice of Termination on 14.7.2015 in the
name of legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre and copy was endorsed to
opponent No.2. Said Notice of Termination dt.14.7.2015 was also
pasted on the conspicuous part of the application premises and
applicant/LIC filed Composite Application for eviction of legal heirs of
Late Shri D.N.Mhatre as well as opponent No.2.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Kandekar for applicant/LIC further
submitted that notices under Sections 4 and 7 were issued by the Estate
Officer to all the opponents in the Composite Application. The show
cause notices were served on all the opponents in the Composite
Application. Opponent No.1 chosen not to appear before the Estate
Officer. Opponent No.2 participated in the proceedings through his
Advocate and filed his written statement. Thus, principles of natural
justice have been followed by the Estate Officer. The evidence is also
-- 7 of 32 --
8 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
adduced by the applicant/LIC as well as by Opponent No.2. During
crossexamination, Opponent No.2 has admitted that electronic items
are stored in the application premises. Thus, his crossexamination
shows that usage of the application premises was changed from
residential to commercial purpose. The applicant/LIC has also examined
Valuer in support of its claim towards the damages. The Valuer being
expert in the field has scientifically calculated the damages at the rate of
Rs.1,94,731/p.m. The total amount towards damages is Rs.98,38,188/
from the date of Notice of Termination till the order passed by the
Estate Officer on 29.3.2019. Opponent No.2 has not examined any
Valuer in support of his contention. The applicant/LIC has also claimed
the arrears of rent. The terms and conditions have been signed by the
original tenant. The terms and conditions prohibit the original tenant to
assign, sublet or part with possession of the demised premises or any
part thereof even where allowed by the law without the previous
consent in writing of the Corporation i.e. LIC. Opponent No.2 has
issued a letter to the applicant/LIC and admitted that he has occupied
the part premises of Room No.1/2 belonging to D.N.Mhatre and
requested the applicant/LIC to transfer tenancy in his name. Nothing
more than this require to prove parting with possession, assigning of the
application premises without prior permission of the applicant/LIC.
Thus, applicant has proved that opponent No.2 is unauthorized
occupant of the application premises. As the applicant/LIC had called
upon to furnish the names of the legal heirs and representatives of Late
Shri D.N.Mhatre, neither the legal heirs and representatives have come
forward nor they have claimed any right, title, interest in the application
premises by participating in the proceedings before the Estate Officer.
However, the applicant/LIC has added the legal heirs of Opponent No.1
in the proceedings before the Estate Officer. Opponent No.2 has
-- 8 of 32 --
9
participated in the proceedings and thus, Estate Officer has followed the
principles of natural justice. The theory of caretaker developed by
opponent No.2 is only to come out from the clutches of the proceedings.
Opponent No.2 was in occupation of the application premises whose
occupation was unauthorized. He has no authority to use, occupy the
application premises. Thus, the applicant/LIC has proved its case that
original tenant has parted with possession of application premises
without its consent and he was in arrears of rent. Therefore, order
passed by the Estate Officer is legal and no interference is called for.
6. After hearing both the sides, following points arise for my
consideration and I answer the same as follows:
POINTS: FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant/LIC proves that
legal heirs and representatives of original
tenant contravened the terms and
conditions of tenancy agreement and
thereby committed breach and thus, they
are in unauthorized occupation of the
application premises?
..In affirmative.
2. Whether the applicant/LIC has proved
that Opponent No.2 is in unauthorized
occupation of the application premises,
as he is occupying the application
premises without consent of the
applicant?
..In affirmative.
3. Whether the order passed by the Estate
Officer is bad in law and liable to be
interfered with?
..Partly in affirmative.
Impugned order is
modified to the extent that
opponent No.2/appellant
is liable to pay damages
considering the area which
is in his possession.
4. What order ? As per final order.
-- 9 of 32 --
10 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
7. Applicant/LIC has filed application for eviction on the
ground that the application premises was given on monthly rent basis to
late Shri D.N.Mhatre. Shri D.N.Mhatre is not alive. His legal heirs are in
occupation of the application premises but they have parted with the
possession of the application premises with Opponent No.2 illegally in
contravention of terms and conditions of tenancy. Other ground raised
by the applicant/LIC is that original tenant i.e. Late Shri D.N.Mhatre is
in arrears of rent and on that ground also, applicant is entitled to claim
the relief of eviction.
8. To prove the case, the applicant has examined Shri Vinod
Bhoyar, Administrative Officer, LIC. He filed affidavit of examination in
chief in support of his contention. He reiterated the contentions raised
in the application. Sum and substance of his evidence is that
applicant/LIC is the owner of application premises being Room No.1/2,
Ground Floor, Sita Chawl, New Badam Wadi, V.P.Road, Mumbai 400
004. The application premises is identified in its record as Tenancy Code
No.3306. The application premises was given to Shri D.N.Mhatre on
monthly rent basis on terms and conditions. The terms and conditions
of tenancy were signed by Late Shri D.N.Mhatre. As per said terms and
conditions, authorized occupant shall not assign, sublet or part with
possession of the demised premises or any part thereof even where
allowed by the law without the previous consent in writing of the
Corporation i.e. LIC. It is further agreed by Late Shri D.N.Mhatre that
rent is payable in full on the first day of each month. A grace period of
10 days will be allowed. If 10th day of the grace period for payment of
rent falls on Sunday or Holidays, the rent will be payable on next
-- 10 of 32 --
11
following working day, failing which interest would become payable
from due date i.e. the 1st day of the month at an appropriate rate as per
the instructions issued from time to time. It is further agreed that if the
tenant fails to pay rent continuously for 3 months, then applicant/LIC is
at liberty to initiate the proceedings against him. His further evidence
reveals that Building Inspector of the applicant/LIC visited the
application premises on various dates and it revealed that legal heirs of
opponent No.1 had parted possession of the application premises with
Opponent No.2 who is presently occupying the application premises
and using the said premises as godown for storing electronic items.
Thus, late Shri D.N.Mhatre has unauthorizedly allowed Opponent No.2
to use and occupy application premises for commercial purpose when
the application premises was let out for residential purpose. His further
evidence shows that late Shri D.N.Mhatre is also in arrears of rent.
Authority letter issued to Witness Shri Vinod Bhoyar is also filed on
record.
9. The applicant/LIC has also relied upon the various letters
which are issued to the legal heirs of late Shri D.N.Mhatre. Exh.A9 is
the letter dt. 28.3.2000 issued to Sachin K. Mhatre by which he was
requested to submitted certified copy of Ration Card which includes his
name and names of other legal heirs of late Shri D.N.Mhatre. Another
letter is dt. 31.5.1997 addressed to K.D.Mhatre and vide said letter, it is
requested by the applicant/LIC to submit necessary documents to prove
that his son Sachin Mhatre, grandson of Shri D.N.Mhatre was staying
alongwith deceased Shri D.N. Mhatre at the time of his death in the
application premises. Another letter is dt. 16.3.2002 issued to Shri
K.D.Mhatre requesting him to submit necessary details regarding legal
heirs. Similar letter is also issued on 11.7.2001. The applicant/LIC is
-- 11 of 32 --
12 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
also relied upon the letter issued by Opponent No.2 requesting the
applicant/LIC to transfer tenancy in his name. Said letter is dt.5.1.2016
by which Opponent No.2 approached to Regional Manager (Estate) of
the applicant/LIC and filed an application that he is occupying the part
premises of Room No.1/2 belonging to Shri D.N.Mhatre and requested
to transfer the tenancy in his name. He also enclosed his PAN Card and
electricity bill for reference of the applicant/LIC and requested to take
necessary action considering his application.
10 Thus, it is deposed by Shri Vinod Bhoyar, witness of the
applicant/LIC that legal heirs of D.N.Mhatre and Opponent No.2 both
have parted with possession of the application premises without consent
of the applicant/LIC and thereby contravened the terms and conditions.
Moreover, legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre are in arrears of rent. After
issuance of several letters by the applicant/LIC, legal heirs of Shri
D.N.Mhatre have not responded and therefore, whereabouts were not
known and hence, termination notice was pasted on the outer door of
the application premises and pasting report is filed on record. Shri
Vinod Bhoyar, Administrative Officer of the applicant has been cross
examined at length. During his crossexamination, it came on record
that from office record, he came to know that the application premises
was let out to Shri D.N.Mhatre. He also deposed that he has not
produced any record of Shri D.N.Mhatre showing that he is tenant of
LIC but he is inherited tenant since the tenanted premises came in
possession of LIC.
11 It also came in crossexamination of Shri Vinod Bhoyar that
Shri D.N.Mhatre is monthly tenant and he has been allowed to use the
application premises for residential purpose only. He cannot sublet the
-- 12 of 32 --
13
said premises to any other person without permission of landlord. Shri
D.N.Mhatre has to pay the monthly rent regularly. If he pays the rent
late beyond 21 days, he has to pay interest to LIC as per prevailing rate.
Said witness has also enclosed copy of rent bill in Eviction Application
and terms and conditions printed at the back thereof. It further came in
his crossexamination that the tenant has sublet the application
premises to Opponent No.2 for commercial purpose, when premises is
basically a residential premises. He has not paid arrears of rent since
May, 2008. It further came in his crossexamination that Building
Inspector asked the unauthorized occupant i.e. Opponent No.2 to
submit his visiting card, telephone bill, ration card and electricity bill
but denied to submit the same and it is noted by the Building Inspector
in his report. Subsequently, Opponent No.2 visited office of the
applicant/LIC and submitted his I.D. proof and electricity bill. Copy of
the same is available in its office record. It further came in his cross
examination that Opponent No.2 has shop namely 'Rhythm Electronics'
at S.V. Marg, (Kline Lane), Lamington Road, New Badam Wadi,
Girgaum, Mumbai and he is using the application premises as a godown
for storage of electronics and electrical products. He denied that notice
is not issued to Opponent No.2. Said notice is at Exh.D. It further came
in his evidence that notice was issued to the legal heirs of D.N.Mhatre.
As applicant/LIC was not knowing exactly how many legal heirs are
there of deceased tenant, and therefore, Notice of Termination has been
issued by mentioning all legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre. Thus, it
appears from crossexamination of AW1 Shri Vinod Bhoyar that
Opponent No.2 tried to bring it on record that there is no violation of
terms and conditions of tenancy and applicant/LIC has no evidence to
show that application premises was let out to opponent No.2.
-- 13 of 32 --
14 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
12 To show that opponent No.2 is in possession of the
application premises, the applicant/LIC has examined Mr. Deepak
Ajgaonkar, Building Inspector as witness No.2 and Mr. Sunil Nimje as
Witness No.4. As per evidence of AW2 Deepak Ajgaonkar, he is
working as Building Inspector for some of the Buildings including Sita
Building situated at Badamwadi, Mumbai 400 002. He used to visit the
application premises at regular intervals. He visited the application
premises on 2.8.2013, 13.12.2013, and 24.12.2013. He has also taken
the photographs of application premises during his visit. During his visit,
one Mr.Anil Visaria was found in use and occupation of the application
premises. He also submitted his report to the Estate Department. He
visited the application premises on 2.8.2013 and found that the
application premises was closed and locked. He submitted report
accordingly. Again he visited on 13.12.2013 and found the application
premises is closed and locked. On 23.12.2013 he visited the application
premises at about 2.30 p.m. and found that said premises was
unauthorizedly occupied by one Mr. Anil Visaria i.e. opponent No.2, the
owner of Rhythm Electrical and Electronic Shop and it is used for
storage of electrical and electronic goods i.e. used as godown. He again
visited the application premises on 31.1.2014 and found that Opponent
No.2 is in use and occupation of the application premises. Accordingly,
he submitted the report. In support of his contention he filed on record
the Inspection Reports dt.1.8.2013,14.7.2011, 4.8.2011, 7.9.2011,
14.12.2011, 21.3.2013, 2.8.2013, 13.12.2013, 20.8.2010, 15.9.2011,
24.12.2013, 30.1.2014 alongwith photocopies of the photographs of
application premises. All these Inspection Reports show that on some of
the occasions, application premises was found in locked condition.
Inspection Report dt.20.8.2010 shows that one Shri Anil Visaria is
occupying Room No.2 of the said premises. The said Inspection Report
-- 14 of 32 --
15
also shows that premises is being used for commercial purpose as
godown to store electronic items. Inspection Report further shows that
Kadappa is fixed inside the wall in one room, new cabin is created by
installing plywood. Inspection report dt.15.9.2011 also shows that
during his visit, he met Opponent No.2 Anil Visaria who informed him
that said premises has been occupied by Shri Sachin Kishore Mhatre and
at the time of his visit, he found that said premises has been sublet to
Shri Anil Visaria i.e. Opponent No.2 and he is using the said premises
for storing electronic goods. Inspection Report dt.24.12.2013 also shows
that Opponent No.2 is using Room No.2 for storing electronic goods.
Inspection Report dt. 30.1.2014 also shows that Opponent No.2 is in
occupation of the said premises and using it as a godown.
13 AW2 Mr. Deepak Ajgaonkar, Building Inspector is cross
examined at length. During his crossexamination, he stated that as a
part of his duties, he has to inspect the premises of LIC and to check
whether there is any unauthorized occupancy or illegal repairs in their
premises. Regarding his authorization, he stated that Regional
Manager, Estate Department, has appointed him as a Building Inspector
to inspect and visit the premises owned by LIC or let out by original
owners. His further crossexamination shows that as per letter submitted
by the Estate Department to inspect the premises, the registered tenant
is Shri D.N.Mhatre. During his visit, he found that Anil Visaria is in
occupation of said premises. He visited the said premises personally to
assess the occupation of the said premises. He met Shri Anil Visaria and
his staff members who confirmed the occupation of the said premises
and also inquired with the neighbouring occupants. He further stated
that inquiry with the neighbouring occupants was not required as the
unauthorized occupant was himself present at the time of inspection. He
-- 15 of 32 --
16 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
denied that the conclusion drawn by him in his inspection report,
regarding the occupation of the application premises is purely based on
the alleged information provided to him by some unknown persons. He
stated that he inquired with the said person regarding the details of the
occupant to which he informed that he is working in a shop namely
'Rhythm House' which belongs to Anil Visaria and the goods stored
inside the said premises also belong to him.
14 Applicant/LIC has also examined Shri Sunil Nimje as
Witness No.4 who is also Building Inspector. His evidence is also of the
similar nature that he visited the application premises on 20.8.2010 and
observed that Anil Visaira i.e. Opponent No.2 is occupying the said
premises. Accordingly, he submitted his report. In support of his
contention, he also filed on record the inspection reports. During his
crossexamination, he stated that he is aware that application premises
is shown in the name of 'D.N.Mhatre' as per record of LIC. He made
efforts to find out D.N.Mhatre but he could not get any information
about him. His evidence further shows that during his visit to the
application premises, it revealed to him that Anil Visaria is occupying
and using the said premises for storing electrical items.
15 To prove the aspect of damages, the applicant/LIC relied
upon the evidence of AW3 Shri R.C. Malhotra, Chartered Architect and
Valuer. As per his evidence, he personally inspected, surveyed and
measured the said residential application premises on 7.10.2015. The
area of room is approximately 700 sq.ft. Carpet area. He found that
Room No.2 was occupied by Shri Anil Visaria. Accordingly, he prepared
Valuation Report. His Valuation Report is on record which shows that
he has assessed the value of total premises i.e. 840 sq.ft. Built up area
-- 16 of 32 --
17
and accordingly issued the Valuation Report. During his cross
examination, it came on record that on the basis of his 50 years
experience, he drawn the assumption of the age of the building wherein
the application premises is located. He has seen the building structure
and assessed the age of the building. He has not inquired with LIC
about the age of the building. He admitted that he has not prepared
report pertaining to the measurement of the application premises but he
took measurements while visiting the premises and it is given in the
Valuation Report. It further came on record during his evidence that
Valuation Report prepared by him is based on actual figures from
Maharashtra Government, Ready Reckoner and record of LIC and after
utilizing the same, he has prepared the Valuation Report. He denied
that report is based on assumptions and presumptions. It further came
on record that Ready Reckoner gives the market rate of properties
which are normally on the lower side as compared to the actual market
rate. He admitted that market rent calculated from Ready Reckoner rate
is always less than the market rent normally. Therefore, market rent
will be 5% to 10% less than the rent calculated in the Valuation Report.
It specifically came on record in his crossexamination that he saw only
Room No.2 as Room No.1 was locked. Thus, evidence of AW1 Shri
Vinod Bhoyar, AW2 Mr. Deepak Ajgaonkar, and AW4 Mr. Sunil Nimje
shows that Opponent No.2 is in possession of Room No.2 and Room
No.1 was found locked. Evidence of AW3 Shri R.C. Malhotra, Architect
and Valuer also shows that he only seen Room No.2 and Room No.1
was locked. Thus, witnesses of applicant/LIC categorically stated that
Opponent No.2 is only in possession of Room No.2 admeasuring 450
sq.ft. and room No.1 was found locked.
16 Opponent No.2 also entered into witness box and also filed
-- 17 of 32 --
18 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
affidavit of examination in chief. His evidence is that no notice is issued
to him and no correspondence was addressed to him by the
applicant/LIC. He further stated that applicant/LIC is completely aware
that D.N.Mhatre expired in 1992 and his grandson Sachin Mhatre is the
legal heir (tenant) of the application premises who has filed an
application for transfer of tenancy in his name. He is a close friend of
Sachin Mhatre and therefore, he is permitted to look after and take care
of the application premises as and when Sachin Mhatre is out of station.
There are two rooms and inner room is kept under lock and key is with
Sachin Mhatre which has not been inspected by officials of the
applicant/LIC. He is also crossexamined by the applicant/LIC. During
his crossexamination, it came on record that since last 20 years, he is
running the business in the name and style as “Rhythm Electronics'. It
has further come in his crossexamination that the application premises
belongs to his friend Sachin Mhatre and he is caretaker and said Sachin
Mhatre has handed over keys to him and electronic items are stored
therein. He specifically admitted that he did not claim any right in the
application premises. It further came in his evidence that Mr. Sachin
Mhatre is running business of import and export. He has not produced
any documentary record to show that Sachin Mhatre is running business
of import and export of electronic items. He admitted that he is not
using the application premises and therefore, he is not unauthorized
occupant. He stated that all the goods in the application premises are of
Sachin Mhatre. He admitted that he has stated before Estate Officer that
applicant/LIC was aware of his presence in the application premises. He
also admitted that he was expecting Notice of Termination in his name.
He denied that he at any point of time applied to the applicant/LIC for
permission to occupy the application premises. He also admitted that no
permission was granted by LIC to him to occupy and remain present in
-- 18 of 32 --
19
the application premises. He denied that he is using the application
premises for storing electronic items. Thus, stand taken by Opponent
No.2 that he is the only caretaker and entire items kept in Room No.2
belong to Sachin Mhatre but he is not having any document to show
that said electronic items are of Sachin Mhatre. On the basis of
evidence, opponent No.2 has challenged the action of the applicant/LIC
on the ground that no notice was served on him. He is not concerned
with the application premises but he is only caretaker thereof.
Admittedly, he has not examined Mr.Sachin Mhatre who is given him
the said premises only for taking care of and he is caretaker. He
completely denied that at any point of time, he has filed any application
for transfer of tenancy in his name.
17 After considering the evidence of both the sides, it has to be
seen whether the applicant/LIC has succeeded in proving that Opponent
No.2 is occupying the application premises for storing goods and he is
unauthorized occupant. Learned Advocate Shri Page submitted that
applicant/LIC has received consideration for transfer of title. He further
submitted that no notice was issued to Opponent No.2. Even notices
issued to Opponent No.1 or his legal heirs are not properly served on
them. Notice of termination dt.14.7.2015 are not served either on
Opponent No.1 or Opponent No.2. Show cause notices issued by the
Estate Officer are not served on opponents. Therefore, entire
proceedings conducted by Estate Officer is bad in law. Applicant/LIC
has failed to prove that Opponent No.2 is unauthorized occupant and
using the application premises unauthorizedly. He is only caretaker. In
support his contention, he relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in Bhupendar Singh Sethi and Anr. Vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Writ Petition No. 3463 of 2016
-- 19 of 32 --
20 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
Decided on 28th March, 2016) wherein it is observed that petitioners
claim through Respondent No.2 who was the original tenant of the
premises and who has allegedly executed a leave and license agreement
in favour of the petitioners. It is observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High
Court that there are arguable issues for consideration and hence,
petitioners would continue to occupy the premises in question on the
terms and conditions mentioned by Principal Judge of City Civil Court
by order dt. 26.8.2015 directing the petitioners to pay compensation at
the rate of Rs.10,000/ per month. Learned Advocate for Opponent No.2
submitted that in view of said order, the application premises is also
lying in the same area and therefore, order passed by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court is applicable in the present case also.
18 On the other hand, Learned Advocate Shri Kandekar for the
applicant/LIC submitted that correspondence on record shows that
applicant/LIC has issued several letters to legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre
to furnish the required information. Letters are not only issued to
Sachin Mhatre but to father of Sachin i.e. K.D. Mhatre, but none of them
has turned up and therefore, applicant/LIC was unaware about all the
legal heirs. Therefore, no choice left with the applicant/LIC to issue the
notice in the names of legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre. Admittedly,
notices issued to legal heirs of D.N.Mhatre are returned with
endorsement “Left”. One room is in possession of legal heirs of Shri
D.N.Mhatre. Therefore, applicant/LIC has pasted the termination notice
on the conspicuous part of the application premises and therefore, legal
heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre are very well aware about the said notice.
Show cause notice is also also pasted on the outer door of the
application premises. It is further submitted that copy of notice is also
served on Opponent No.2 and therefore, there is proper service of notice
-- 20 of 32 --
21
on the legal heirs of Opponent No.1 as well as Opponent No.2. In
support of his contention he relied upon the decision in the case of
Trustees of N.M.Petit Charity Fund & Ors.Vs. Heirs and Legal
Representatives [2018 (5) Bom.C.R.137] wherein it is observed that
suit for recovery of possession without naming LRs. of deceased tenant
or any other defendant, suit without naming individual legal heirs and
even without naming another defendant as unlawful occupant cannot
be said to be not maintainable nor will it result in decree that is nullity.
However, Court may insist for instance not only on pasting but on
publication in newspapers in vicinity of tenanted premises. It is
observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the issue at hand is
that there are cases in the city where a landlord does not know the
names or addresses or both of the heirs of a deceased tenant. None
come forward when the tenant dies. What is the process that a landlord
should follow to recover his property? Is it at all permissible for the
landlord to bring a formal eviction action in the names of, for instance,
the heirs and legal representatives, if any of the late tenant.? It is
observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the petitioners as
trustees were unaware of any heirs. The obituary in the newspapers
disclosed no heirs or legal representatives against whom the petitioners
could have proceeded to recover the premises. Thus, when the
petitioners brought suit, they joined “the unknown heirs and legal
representatives” of the deceased. It was their case that Jai Unwal was a
licensee or gratuitous licensee. The suit itself was listed for a decision on
the question of maintainability. The trial court held that a suit against
unknown heirs was maintainable provided that also joined to the suit
were another defendant or other defendants who were known and
identified.
In Para 16 it is observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
-- 21 of 32 --
22 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
that there is no good reason why the provisions of Order XXII Rule4A
cannot be used or invoked in situation like this or why we must have so
rigid a line between a case where a defendanttenant dies after the suit
but without leaving heirs and a case where a tenant is only a potential
defendant who dies without heirs before the suit is brought. This is the
reason why I have noted the historicity of this legislation and pointed
out the restrictions that it imposes on the rights of a landlord and the
consequences of following too slavishly some procedural norm that only
operates to oust substantive legal rights of property ownership. These
rights are valuable. They are not to be underestimated. It is further
observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by referring the judgment
of V.B.Kapadia Vs. Nirmala, Civil Revision Application No.5423 of
1961, decided on 22nd January, 1962 wherein it is observed that a
landlord sought to serve a notice in the name of the person who held
the tenancy. The notice was refused and returned unserved. A few
months later, the landlord filed an ejectment suit. He could not find the
names of the legal representatives. He brought the suit in the name of
unnamed legal representatives of the last recorded tenant. An
application for pasting then followed, and this was granted. The suit
resulted in exparte decree. It is further observed by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court that absolute principle that is invoked by citing
Volvoikar is, therefore, incorrect and that judgment cannot be held to
have correctly set out an absolute principle in law that a suit against
unnamed or unknown legal heirs is not maintainable. The correct
position in law on the contrary is that while ordinarily heirs must and
ought to be named, there are circumstances in which they cannot be so
named and such a suit is maintainable and may result in a valid decree
even for possession. It is held that such a suit without naming
individual legal heirs and even without naming another defendant as
-- 22 of 32 --
23
unlawful occupant cannot be said to be not maintainable nor will it
result in decree that is nullity.
19 In the present case, the applicant/LIC has taken efforts to
find out legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre. Correspondence which is on
record shows that Zonal Manager has received the application from one
K.D.Mhatre informing that his father Dinesh N. Mhatre died on
15.10.1992. Thereafter several letters are issued to legal heirs of Shri D.
N.Mhatre for furnishing relevant documents to transfer the tenancy in
the names of legal heirs. Letters dt.20.12.1993, 31.5.1997, 28.3.2000 ,
11.7.2001, 16.3.2002, show that time and again, details regarding legal
heirs and relevant documents are called upon from legal heirs of Shri
D. N.Mhatre but neither details are furnished nor the names of all legal
heirs are furnished to the applicant/LIC and therefore, the applicant/LIC
has issued the notice of termination in the name as 'Legal Heirs of D.
N.Mhatre'. Admittedly, legal heirs of Shri D. N.Mhatre have not
contested the application before the Estate Officer. As the part premises
i.e. Room No.1 of the application premises is already in possession of
legal heirs of Shri D. N.Mhatre, the Notice of Termination as well as
show cause notice is not only sent by RPAD but it was also pasted on the
conspicuous part of the application premises. Pasting report is filed on
record by the applicant/LIC. So this is sufficient to show that Opponent
No.1 i.e. legal heirs of Shri D. N.Mhatre are very well aware about the
proceedings. Pasting Report shows that notices are served by pasting the
same on the outer portion of the application premises. Not only the
termination notice but show cause notice is also pasted in presence of
two witnesses. Therefore, contention of Opponent No.2 that as notices
are not properly served, the eviction application is bad in law, is not
sustainable.
-- 23 of 32 --
24 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
20 It is further contention of Opponent No.2 that notice was
not addressed to him whereas the contention of the applicant/LIC is
that copy of notice is already served on Opponent No.2. Termination
Notice shows that copy of notice is marked to Opponent No.2. For that
purpose, Learned Advocate for the applicant/LIC relied upon the
judgment in Burmah Shell Oil Distributing Vs. Khaja Midhat Noor
(AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1470) wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that termination of lease by one month's notice on
lesssee alone is valid. Notice on sublessee is not necessary. It is held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that there was a valid notice of termination of
lease to the lessee. In any event, the lessee did not dispute and accepted
that there was a valid termination of the lease hold property. The lessee
did not contest the suit but the sublessee contested the suit on the
ground that the lease was not validly terminated. It is observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the termination of lease could only be by giving
a valid notice. Such notice was given to the lessee but not to the sub
lessee. The respondent's case is that a notice to sublessee was not
necessary. The question is whether there was a valid notice. It is held
that there was valid notice of termination of lease to the lessee, then
there was no need to give a fresh notice to the sublessee.
21 In the present case also Opponent No.1 i.e.legal heirs of
D.N.Mhatre have not contested the application but Opponent No.2 has
contested the application on the ground that lease was not validly
terminated. In the present case also lessee did not dispute about the
termination of tenancy and not contested the eviction application.
Additionally, in the present case also the copy of notice is served on
Opponent No.2. Therefore, contention of Opponent No.2 that notice is
not served and hence application is bad in law is not acceptable.
-- 24 of 32 --
25
22 Admittedly, in the present case also late Shri D.N.Mhatre is
the original tenant and authorized occupant in respect of the premises
on ground floor in Sita Chawl, i.e. Room No.1/2. It is also an admitted
position that he accepted the terms and conditions of lease agreement
that authorized occupant shall not assign, sublet or part with possession
of the demised premises or any part thereof even where allowed by the
law without the previous consent in writing of the Corporation i.e. LIC.
He also agreed to pay rent regularly on the first day of every month and
grace period of 10 days is given to him. None of the legal heirs have
contested application and not denied that Shri D.N.Mhatre was not in
arrears of rent. Statement of rent which is on record shows that
Rs.7,49,261/ are arrears of rent against late Shri D.N.Mhatre. Though
Opponent No.2 denied his possession over Room No.2 but the
application filed by him before Regional Manager(Estate) dt. 5.1.2016
shows that he is in occupation of Room No.2 of the application premises
which was given to Shri D.N.Mhatre. Opponent No.2 by this letter also
requested to transfer tenancy in his name and he also filed the relevant
documents i.e. PAN and electricity bill to the applicant/LIC.
Subsequently, he came with the defence that he is only caretaker and
therefore, during the visit of Building Inspector, he was seen by them in
the application premsies. He further came with the case that one Sachin
Mhatre is his friend and whenever said Sachin Mhatre is out of station,
on behalf of Sachin Mhatre he takes care of the said application
premises. Admittedly, Opponent No.2, has not examined Sachin Mhatre
to show that he was deputed by said Sachin Mhatre to take care of the
application premises. Except his bare statement nothing is on record to
show that he was deputed in the application premises by Sachin Mhatre
as a caretaker.
-- 25 of 32 --
26 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
23. On the other hand, said defence of Opponent No.2 is
falsified by his application dt. 5.1.2016 addressed to the Regional
Manager(Estate) as well as by the evidence of AW2 Building Inspectors
Deepak Ajgaonkar and AW4 Sunil Nimje. The inspection reports which
are prepared from time to time by visiting the application premises
show that either the application premises is in locked condition or on 2
3 occasions Opponent No.2 was found in the application premises.
Inspection reports further show that Room No.2 of the application
premises is used as godown for storing the electronic materials.
Admittedly, the business of Opponent no.2 is of electronic material.
Though opponent No.2 claimed that Sachin Mhatre is dealing with
import and export business of electronic material but there is no
evidence to that effect. Opponent No.2 has admitted in his cross
examination that he is running business of electronic material and he is
a dealer. He also admitted that the name of the firm as 'Rhythm
Electronics'. Thus, the admissions given by Opponent No.2 during his
crossexamination, evidence of Building Inspectors AW2 Mr. Deepak
Ajgaonkar and AW4 Mr. Sunil Nimje and the application filed by
opponent No.2 before the Regional Manager(Estate) show that
opponent No.2 is using Room No.2 of the application premises for
storing electronic items. No further evidence is required to ascertain
that it is opponent No.2 who is in possession of Room No.2 of the
application premises. Admittedly, the application premises is given to
Late Shri D.N.Mhatre on lease for the residential purpose and without
any authority and without taking consent of the applicant/LIC, it was
handed over to Opponent No.2 by legal heirs of late Shri D.N.Mhatre
which is clear breach of terms and conditions of said lease agreement.
There is no evidence on record to show that there was any consent by
applicant/LIC to Opponent No.2 to use said Room No.2 of application
-- 26 of 32 --
27
premises as a godown. As there was no consent and it is occupied by
Opponent no.2 without any authority, therefore, applicant/LIC decided
to initiate action and accordingly, termination notice was issued.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Opponent No.2 is
unauthorized occupant in the application premises.
24. As I have already observed that legal heirs of Shri
D.N.Mhatre have not contested the application and not denied that they
are not in arrears of rent and therefore, termination notice was issued.
Thus, the possession of legal heirs of Shri D. N.Mhatre in Room No.1 of
the application premises is also unauthorized. The legal heirs of Shri
D.N.Mhatre have contravened the terms and conditions of lease by
allowing Opponent No.2 in the application premises. Therefore,
termination notice was issued to them. After termination notice, legal
heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre also become unauthorized occupants.
“Unauthorized Occupation” means use or actual occupation by any
person of the public premises without authority. This cannot be equated
with the term subletting or otherwise parting with the possession. The
definition of 'unauthorized occupation' contained in The Public Premises
Act would thus encompass use and actual possession of the part or
whole of the public premises by person other than the lessee for his
business or profession which is unconnected with the activities of lessee
and for which purpose the premises were let out to the lessee.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that in the present case,
applicant/LIC has proved that legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre by
contravening the terms and conditions of lease parted the possession of
Room No.2 of the application premises with Opponent No.2 without any
authority. Legal heirs of Shri D.N.Mhatre are also in arrears of rent and
therefore, action taken against Opponent Nos.1 and 2 is legal and
-- 27 of 32 --
28 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
correct one. Hence, I answer Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.3
25. Opponent No.2 has challenged the order of the Estate
Officer regarding award of damages by the Estate Officer. Estate Officer
has allowed the application and directed Opponent Nos.1 and 2 to pay
Rs.6,31,781/ towards the damages within 15 days from the date of the
application. Legal heirs of Opponent No.1 are also directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.7,49,261/ being arrears of rent together with simple interest
in respect of the application premises.
26. To ascertain the damages, the applicant/LIC has examined
AW3 i.e. Valuer AW3 Shri R.C. Malhotra. If the evidence of AW3
Shri R.C. Malhotra and his valuation report is taken into consideration,
he has ascertained the valuation of entire area. However, it is an
admitted position that Opponent No.2 is only in possession of Room
No.2, therefore, Opponent No.2 is only liable to pay the damages for the
area which is in his possession ie. 450 sq.ft. Carpet (540 built up area) .
However, the Estate Officer has not considered the same and directed to
pay the amount of damages by holding total 840 sq.ft area in possession
of Opponent No.2.
27. Admittedly, Opponent No.2 is in possession of 450 sq.ft.
Carpet (540 built up area). Working on market rent as on 1.9.2015 as
follows:
Market value:
Market value of the property having similar specification if constructed
on date at the same location having built up area 840 sq.ft. @
Rs. 35,470/ per sq.ft. As on 1.9.2015 =840 X Rs.35,470 comes to
-- 28 of 32 --
29
Rs. 2,97,94,800/.
If the area of which is in possession of opponent No.2 is considered, it is
540 sq.ft. Built up area and considering the above market value, it
comes to Rs.1,91,53,800/
Cost of Construction:
Cost of construction for an area 840 sq.ft. @ Rs.2322/ per sq.ft. =840
X 2322 which comes to Rs.19,50,480/.
However, Opponent No.2 is in possession of 540 built up area so 540 X
2322= Rs.12,53,880/
Depreciation:
Depreciation for age of building life of the building @ 30% on cost of
construction i.e.19,50,480 X 30/100=5,85,144/. The valuer has
ascertained the said amount by considering total 840 sq.ft. Built up
area.
However, the area which is in possession of Opponent No.2 is taken into
consideration then calculation will be Rs.12,53,880 X 30/100=
3,76,164/.
Replacement Value of premises:
Replacement value of premises including proportional cost of land as on
1.9.2015 considering 840 sq.ft. Built up area is
Rs.2,97,94,8005,85,144= Rs. 2,92,09,656/.
Same ratio is applicable to Opponent No.2 and and therefore, it will
come to Rs.1,91,53,8003,76,164= 1,87,77,636/
Net Returns:
Net returns 8% of market value of the property as on date of valuation=
Rs. 2,92,09,656 X 8/100 = 23,36,772/
Same ratio is applicable to Opponent No.2 and and therefore, it will
come to Rs. 1,87,77,636 X 8/100= Rs.15,02,211/
-- 29 of 32 --
30 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
Market Rent per month:
Market Rent Per month=Rs.23,36,772 X 1/12= Rs. 1,94,731/
Market rent per month for the area in possession of Opponent No.2
comes to Rs.15,02,211 X 1/12=Rs. 1,25,184/.
Thus, damages @ Rs.1,25,184/ per month from 1.9.2015 to 31.3.2019
(for 43 months) comes to Rs. 53,82,912/plus compound interest @9%
p.a.
28. Thus, the Estate Officer has wrongly awarded the damages
collectively against Opponent Nos.1 and 2. Opponent No.2 is only liable
to pay damages considering his possession over 450 sq.ft. (540 built up)
area. Whereas legal heirs of Opponent Nos.1 are liable to pay arrears
of rent alongwith interest as well as damages to the extent of Room
No.1 of the application premises which is in their possession. Therefore
order of the Estate Officer is to be modified to the extent by observing
that Opponent no.2 is only liable to pay to the extent of area which is in
his possession. Therefore, finding of the Estate Officer that Opponent
No.2 is liable to pay entire damages alongwith legal heirs of opponent
No.1 i.e. Rs.98,38,188/ is wrong and illegal and liable to be set aside.
As per order of the Estate Officer, opponent No.2/appellant is also liable
to pay damages from 1.4.2019 till handing over the possession. Hence, I
answer Point No.3 accordingly and proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Misc. Appeal No. 133 of 2019 is partly allowed.
2. Order dt. 29.3.2019 passed by the Estate Officer in
Case No. 3 and 3A of 2016 regarding eviction of the
application premises i.e. Room No.1/2, Ground Floor,
Sita Chawl, New Badam Wadi, V.P.Road, Girgaum,
Mumbai 400 004, against opponent No.1 The legal
heirs of Late Shri D.N. Mhatre and opponent
No.2/appellant Shri Anil Visaria is hereby maintained.
-- 30 of 32 --
31
3. Order passed by the Estate Officer dt.29.3.2019
directing opponent No.2/appellant to pay
Rs.98,38,188/ is hereby set aside and modified to the
extent that opponent No.2/appellant is liable to pay a
sum of Rs.53,82,912/ towards damages with
compound interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum, considering the area which is in his possession
i.e. 450 sq.ft.carpet area (Built Up 540 sq.ft.).
Opponent No.2/appellant is liable to pay damages @
Rs.1,25,184/per month from 1.4.2019 till handing
over possession to the applicant/Respondent No.1
LIC.
Opponent No.1 is liable to pay remaining amount
towards damages with compound interest at the rate
of 9 per cent per annum.
4. R and P be sent back to the applicant/LIC.
Date: 23.2.2022 (Urmila S. Joshi Phalke)
Principal Judge,
City Civil Court,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 23.2.2022
Transcribed on : 28.2.2022
Signed on : 28.2.2022
-- 31 of 32 --
32 JMisc.Appeal No.133/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: B.S.Parab
Upload date and time: 2.3.2022 (At 5.54 pm)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SMT.URMILA S.JOSHIPHALKE
(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 23.2.2022
Order signed by P.O. on 28.2.2022
Order uploaded on 2.3.2022
Reuploaded on 6.5.2022
-- 32 of 32 --