Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 SC Suit No.3301/2019
MHCC010094702019
Presented on : 16-09-2019
Registered on : 09-12-2019
Decided on : 23-02-2024
Duration : 4 Y. 5 M. 7 D.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
S. C. SUIT No. 3301 OF 2019
Mr. Krishnappa Duja Poojari }
Hindu, adult, Indian Inhabitant }
aged about 71 years, Occ: Retired }
Mobile No.970265337, }
Residing at Room No.293/ 2/2, }
Indrayani Society, Behind Hanuman }
Temple, Upper Depot, Vikhroli (W) }
Mumbai 400 079 } … Plaintiff.
Vs.
1. Mr. Dayanand Krishnappa Poojari, }
Hindu, adult, Indian Inhabitant }
Aged about 47 years, Occ: Service }
Mobile No.9892473937, }
Residing at Room No.293/ 2/2, }
Indrayani Society, Behind Hanuman }
Temple, Upper Depot, Vikhroli (W), }
Mumbai 400 079
2. Mrs. Surekha Dayanand Poojari }
Hindu, adult, Indian Inhabitant }
Aged about 37 years, Occ: Housewife }
Residing at Room No.293/ 2/2, }
Indrayani Society, Behind Hanuman }
Temple, Upper Depot, Vikhroli (W), }
Mumbai 400 079 } ...Defendants.
-- 1 of 7 --
2 SC Suit No.3301/2019
Learned Advocate Ms. Manisha Bhosale for the plaintiff.
None for the defendants.
CORAM : HHJ V. M. Pathade
(C.R.NO.62)
Date : 23rd February, 2024
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for directing the defendants to evict the suit
premises and for restraining them from entering into, remaining upon,
residing, using and in any manner occupying any portion of the suit
premises.
2. The plaintiff’s case in brief is that he is the owner, occupant
of Room No. 293/ 2/2 Indrayani Society, Behind Hanuman Temple,
Upper Depot, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 079 (which is hereinafter
referred to as suit premises). The suit premises consist of a ground plus
one floor. Gound floor area is 13’ x 11’ = 143 Sq.ft. The plaintiff
alongwith his wife and children was residing in the suit premises. After
marriage of his daughters between the period 2005 and 2012, they
(married daughters) started residing at their matrimonial homes. The
defendant No.1, the son of the plaintiff got married with defendant
No.2, on 2nd February, 2014. The plaintiff’s daughter Sumati after her
marriage started residing with the plaintiff at the suit premises since her
husband was working abroad. The plaintiff after retiring from his
private job has no source of income.
3. It is further stated that the defendant No.1 works in private
sector and earns not less than Rs.20,000/- per month whereas
-- 2 of 7 --
3 SC Suit No.3301/2019
defendant No.2 is a housewife. The defendants have no right, title or
interest in the suit premises and they reside in the suit premises since
the defendant No.1 is his son. The defendants however used to pick up
quarrels with the plaintiff, his wife and their daughter Sumati. The
defendants used to torture the plaintiff and his wife mentally, physically
and financially. The defendants refused to provide food to the plaintiff
and his wife. The plaintiff lodged many police complaints against the
defendants. The defendants used to abuse the plaintiff, his wife and
their daughter Sumati. The plaintiff’s wife had filed a domestic violence
case against defendant No.1 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai and the Court had directed him to pay
Rs.5000/- per month as a maintenance to the plaintiff’s wife. Due to
old age since the plaintiff’s wife could not pursue the said case, it
ultimately came to be disposed of for want of prosecution. In the
month of May, 2019 the defendants threatened the plaintiff and his wife
of dire consequences since the plaintiff asked them to vacate the suit
premises. The defendants have also assaulted the wife of the plaintiff
when she asked for maintenance from defendant No.1. Hence, the suit.
4. In response to the writ of summons served upon the
defendants though they entered appearance in the suit, they failed to
file their written statement as a result of which vide order dated
15.02.2022 the suit was directed to proceed without written statement
of the defendants. Since the defendants did not turn up thereafter, the
suit accordingly proceeded and heard in their absence.
5. In view of the plaint averments and the reliefs sought, the
following points would arise for my determination and I have recorded
-- 3 of 7 --
4 SC Suit No.3301/2019
my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:-
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Does plaintiff prove that he is in lawful
possession and occupation of the suit
premises ?
Yes
2 Does plaintiff prove that the defendants
have no right, title or interest to remain in
the occupation of the suit premises ?
Yes
3. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree as sought
for ? Yes
4. What order and decree ? Suit is decreed with
costs.
REASONS
6. POINT NOs.1 to 3 : The plaintiff in support of his claim adduced
his oral evidence vide Exh.4 and also oral evidence of his wife Mrs.
Meera Poojari vide Exh.5 and his daughter Sumati Poojari vide Exh.6 as
plaintiff’s witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. He also led documentary
evidence such as Photo-pass issued by Brihan Mumbai Municipal
Corporation (BMC) Exh.9, Property Tax Bill Exh.10, Electricity Bill
Exh.11, Ration Card Exh.12, Identity card issued by the Election
Commission of India Exh.13, Aadhar Card Exh.14, PAN Card issued by
the Income Tax Department Exh.15, etc. Since the defendants neither
cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses nor adduced any evidence in
rebuttal, the evidence oral and documentary adduced by the plaintiff
-- 4 of 7 --
5 SC Suit No.3301/2019
remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The learned Counsel for the
plaintiff filed written notes of arguments vide Exh.16 in support of the
claim set out in the plaint.
7. The plaintiff PW-1 Krishnappa in his affidavit of
examination-in-chief stated the facts as narrated in the plaint. PW-2
Smt. Meera, the wife of the plaintiff and PW-3 Smt. Sumati, a daughter
of the plainitff supported version of the plaintiff. It may also be noticed
that the BMC vide Exh.9 issued the plaintiff Pitch Holders Card which
inidcates that the plaintiff is the holder of Pitch/Hut No.293 2/2 i.e. the
suit premises since the year 1977-78. From the document Exh.10 it
would also reflect that the Indrayani Co-operative Housing Society
Vikhroli is collecting property taxes from the plaintiff with respect to the
suit premises. The Electricity Bill Exh.11 would show that, it is the
plaintiff in whose name electric meter is provided by the Distribution
Licensee i.e. Tata Power at the suit premises. The Ration Card Exh.12
would also show that the same is issued in the name of the plaintiff as
the head of the family who resides at the suit premises. The date of
issue of the said Ration Card seems to be 16.08.2000. The Election
Identity Card Exh.13 and Aadhar Card Exh.14 would further show that
the plaintiff resides at the suit premises. Thus, from the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, which remained
unchallenged and unshaken, I see no infirmity in the said evidence to
accept and rely on it. From the said evidence, the plaintiff has
established that he is in lawful possession and occupation of the suit
premises; the defendants who are son and daughter-in-law respectively
of the plaintiff have no independent right, title or interest to remain in
occupation and use of the suit premises against the will and wish of the
-- 5 of 7 --
6 SC Suit No.3301/2019
plaintiff; since the defendants used to harass the plaintiff and his wife
who are the senior citizen and also their daughter Sumati, the
defendants are liable to be evicted and restrained by perpetual
injunction as sought for. In this view of the matter, I record my findings
on point Nos.1 to 3 in affirmative.
8. POINT NO.4 :- In view of my aforesaid discussion,
observations and findings, the suit deserves to be decreed with costs.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The suit stands decreed against the defendants with costs.
2. It is hereby ordered that the defendants shall remove
themselves from the suit premises i.e. Room No. 293/ 2/2
Indrayani Society, Behind Hanuman Temple, Upper Depot,
Vikhroli (W), Mumbai 400 079, along with their belongings,
if any, within eight weeks hereof.
3. After such removal the defendants are perpetually restrained
from entering into, remaining upon, residing, using or
occupying any portion of the suit premises.
4. A Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date : 23.02.2024 (V. M. Pathade)
Dictated on : 23/02/2024 Judge, C.R. No.62,
transcribed on : 26/02/2024 City Civil Court,
Signed on : 27 /02/2024 Mumbai.
-- 6 of 7 --
7 SC Suit No.3301/2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
28.02.2024 at 10.40 a.m. Mr. S.S. Bathe
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. V.M. PATHADE
(C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 23/02/2024
Order signed by P.O. on 27/02/2024
Order uploaded on 28/02/2024
-- 7 of 7 --