Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order on stay application Exh.2 .. 1 .. Misc. Appeal 140/19
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER ON STAY APPLICATION EXHIBIT2
IN RESPECT OF REQUEST FOR ADINTERIM RELIEF
IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.140 OF 2019
Mr. Eknath Krishnaji Sawant & Ors. ...Appellants
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
& Anr. ...Respondents.
Appearances :
Learned Adv. Mr. Suresh Muluk for appellants.
Learned Adv. Mr. Diwte for respondents.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI SADRUDDIN A. QUAZI
(C.R.No.04).
DATED : 10th June, 2019.
: ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard the parties on adinterim stay. Perused the record
produced by the parties. The impugned order is under section 105(B) of
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, holding that the appellants are in
unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. It is held by the
Inquiry Officer that the subject premises was given to the original
occupant Shri Eknath Sawant as service quarter, in view that Shri
Eknath Sawant was the employee of the Municipal Corporation. After
his retirement, he was expected to vacate the premises, but he failed.
The appellants are his legal heirs. Thus, occupation of the appellants is
unauthorized and, therefore, by the impugned order, the appellants
have been directed to vacate the premises.
-- 1 of 4 --
Order on stay application Exh.2 .. 2 .. Misc. Appeal 140/19
2. The learned Advocate of appellants has submitted that the
contention of the Municipal Corporation that the premises was given as
service quarter to deceased Shri Eknath Sawant is not correct, in view of
the letter dated 18.08.1960, issued by the Execution Engineer, Estate
and Land Management Department of Municipal Corporation to the
rent controller and the rent receipts produced by the appellants at page
No.42 to 48 of the compilation filed by the appellants today.
3. The learned advocates of the parties have also referred to the
crossexamination of the witnesses. The learned Advocate of the
respondents has produced copy of order dated 06.01.2017 passed by
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2165 of 2009 and other
petitions, in which the petitioners had contended that the premises in
their respective occupations were given by the Municipal Corporation as
staff quarters and they should be converted into tenancy. That Writ
Petition was dismissed. The learned Advocate of the respondents has
submitted Eknath was president of association of those petitioners and
Writ Petition No.2165/2009 was filed by appellant No.2, who is one of
heirs of said Eknath. It is also submitted that in view of this, the
appellants now cannot say that it was given on tenancy and not as
service quarter. The learned Advocate of the appellants has submitted
that inadvertently, one of the appellants had joined the group of the
petitioners. Other appellants were not party to that Writ Petition and,
therefore, the said admission would not affect the claim of the
appellants that the premises was given on tenancy basis.
4. Considering the submissions of the parties, what I find that is that
the aforesaid issues will have to be decided, after hearing both the
parties for final disposal of the Appeal. At this interim stage, what
-- 2 of 4 --
Order on stay application Exh.2 .. 3 .. Misc. Appeal 140/19
appears is that there is letter dated 18.08.1960 filed by the appellants
referred to above, in which, it is said that the premises is given to
deceased Shri Eknath Sawant after recovery of the necessary tenancy
deposit and with condition that he shall pay the other charges
pertaining to the suit premises etc. The rent receipts produced by the
appellants, will also have to be examined in the light of the aforesaid
letter dated 18.08.1960. Therefore, I find that the appellants have made
out prima facie case for grant of adinterim stay at least till the filing of
the record and proceedings by the respondents. The stay is not being
granted till disposal of the Appeal for the present, to avoid prolonging
of the hearing and disposal of appeal at the instance of the appellants.
Hence, I pass the following order.
: ORDER :
1. The stay application exhibit2 is hereby allowed in
following terms :
(i) The respondent shall not execute the impugned
order till filing of record and proceedings of the Inquiry
Officer and subject to the extension of this stay on next
date.
2. The stay application Exh.2 stands disposed off
accordingly.
(SADRUDDIN A. QUAZI)
Judge, (C.R.No.4)
Date : 10.06.2019. City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 10.06.2019.
Transcribed on : 10.06.2019.
Signed on : 11.06.2019.
-- 3 of 4 --
Order on stay application Exh.2 .. 4 .. Misc. Appeal 140/19
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
11.06.2019, at 04.49 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 10.06.2019.
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 11.06.2019.
Judgment/order uploaded on 11.06.2019.
-- 4 of 4 --