Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Dt. 09122019
SU 2298/19
…..... continue in
SU 2298/19
CORAM : H.H.J SHRI.C. V. MARATHE (C.R.NO.8)
Adv. Yadav h/f Adv. Asit Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft/MCGM present.
Order on N/M No. 3916/19
ORDER
Perused plaint, N/M, documents annexed to the plaint
and heard both sides. Ld. Adv. for the plaintiff has submitted
that the plaintiffs have started occupation of respective rooms
pursuant to different allotment letters issued by
defendant/MCGM and they have filed on record electricity
receipts/letters to prove their long standing occupation. Ld.
Adv. for the defendant/MCGM has filed verification reports of
all the allotment letters which clearly show that the said
allotment letters are not issued by concerned officers of
defendant/MCGM. From this, it is clear case which depicts that
the allotment letters produced by plaintiffs are not genuine
documents. Ld. Adv. for the plaintiff has vehemently argued
that even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs are trespassers
then also the defendant/MCGM has to follow due process of
law in evicting them. In support of his contentions, he has
relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Appex Court in Ramegauda
Vs. M. Vardappa Naidu and Anr. (2004(1) SCC 769) and
Krishna Ram Mahale by his LR's Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat
Rao (Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 1974 decided on 09.08.1989)
wherein it is laid down that a person in settled possession,
even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the
property, can not be dispossessed by the owner of the property
except by recourse to law. After going through both the
judgments it can be seen that the above principle was given in
the facts of those cases wherein the plaintiff was initially
permitted to possess the respective suit premises and
subsequently he denied the title of the person granting him
such permission. In this case, the plaintiffs have not come up
before the Court with the documents showing that they were
permitted to occupy the respective rooms. On the contrary the
allotment letters relied upon by them are prima facie bogus
documents. Since the plaintiffs have not come before the Court
with clean hands, they are not entitled for any discretionary
relief of injunction. Therefore, N/M is dismissed.
Adjd to 23032020 for WS .
Judge
-- 1 of 1 --