Date: 23-10-2019
Date: 05-11-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2019
Date: 20-11-2019
Date: 27-11-2019
Date: 06-12-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2019
Date: 09-12-2019
Business: Adv. Yadav h/f Adv. Asit Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft/MCGM present.
Order on N/M No. 3917/19 -
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.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 09-12-2019