Order 9

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
( BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT - 8
IN
R.A.D. Suit No. 163 of 2025
[CNR NO. MHSCA30004192025]
Mr. Cedric Nazareth D’Costa …Plaintiff.
Versus
Mrs. Lydia Agnes Dias and ors. …Defendants.
Appearance:-
Mr. Deepak J. Lulia Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr. Anthony D’Silva Ld. Advocate for the defendant No.2 to 6.
Defendant no.7 ex-parte.
Coram : L.B.M.M.A. Syed,
Judge, C. R. No. 35,
Date : 16.06.2026.
ORAL ORDER :-
This is an application filed by the plaintiff for seeking
injunction in respect of the suit premises.
2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he has filed the
present suit against the defendant for declaration of tenancy and
injunction in respect of suit premises. There is one tenant known as Mr.
Lawson Pereira in respect of Room No.1 in the Dias House. On 21st
April, 2025 he approached to the plaintiff and informed that the
partner of the defendant No.7 and the defendant No.2 has sent him to
speak to plaintiff for vacating the suit premises for redevelopment of
the suit property. It is further submitted that, the defendant threatened
to the plaintiff for agree to the terms and conditions of the defendants.
/home/steno35/Steno35/Desktop 2/1LMSyed Court Room NO35/1 June 2026/16-06/Exh 8 RAD Suit No. 163 of 2025 injunction application.odt
-- 1 of 5 --
2
The plaintiff and his family members are in exclusive use, occupation
and possession of the suit premises. The defendant no.1 to 7 are not
entitled to interfere with use, occupation, possession of the suit
premises of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 to 7 restraining plaintiff
from the use, occupation, possession of the suit premises and basic
amenities such as electricity, water supply to the suit premises of the
plaintiff. It is further submitted that, if the injunction as prayed is not
granted irreparable loss, harm and injury which can not be
compensated in term of monies would caused to plaintiff. Therefore,
plaintiff prayed to allow the application.
3. The defendant no.2 has filed his say at (Exh.28) and
strongly objected the application filed by the plaintiff. The defendant
no.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 adopted the written statement filed by the defendant
no.2 at (Exh. ) It is the contention of the defendant that, the entire suit
and the present application is misconceived, bad-in-law and not
maintainable. No cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff to take out
the present application for injunction. The defendant has filed his
written statement and confirm all the averments made in the written
statement. The application made by the plaintiff is false and fabricated
story. In the plaint the plaintiff on the one hand in paragraph no.11
states that a meeting was held on 22.04.2025 between him and his
advocate and the defendant No.7 for discussion for the agreement but
at the same time stated that one day before on 21.04.2025 that one
tenant MR. Lawson Pereira came on behalf of the defendant no.7 and
defendant no.2 and threatened him. The present case is only filed to
harass the defendants. The plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case
for grant of injunction. The plaintiff has not made out any case to grant
/home/steno35/Steno35/Desktop 2/1LMSyed Court Room NO35/1 June 2026/16-06/Exh 8 RAD Suit No. 163 of 2025 injunction application.odt
-- 2 of 5 --
3
the present injunction application as the present application is made
out with frivolous, vexatious grounds with only ill motives. Hence,
defendant prayed to reject the application with compensatory costs.
4. Plaintiff has filed his rejoinder at (Exh.31) and reiterate
and confirmed the averments made in the application. The plaintiff
denied the reply filed by the defendant in toto.
5. From the contents of the application and reply, the
following points arise for my determination. I have given my findings
thereon for the reasons stated below :-
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether the plaintiff proves prima facie case ? Proved
2. Whether the balance of convenience tilts in
favour of plaintiff ? Proved
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he will suffer
irreparable loss if the application is not allowed ? Proved
4. What order ? As per
final order
:: REASONS ::
As to points no.1 to 3 :
6. Heard both sides Ld. Advocates for the respective parties.
Perused the record and proceedings. By way of present application the
plaintiff is seeking injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff has
to prove the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss. In order to prove the trio principles he has filed a copy of rent
receipts dated 21.03.2009, 05.02.2009, 19.03.2024, 28.05.2009,
13.01.2025 on record. Apart from this he has produced the death
certificates on record in order to prove the address of the suit premises.
/home/steno35/Steno35/Desktop 2/1LMSyed Court Room NO35/1 June 2026/16-06/Exh 8 RAD Suit No. 163 of 2025 injunction application.odt
-- 3 of 5 --
4
The rations card produced on record is also shows the address of the
suit premises. Moreover, the aadhar cards of plaintiff and his family
members show the address of suit premises. As well as the voter
identity card, senior citizenship card, bank passbooks, electricity bills
shows the address of suit premises.
7. In order to prove the averments made in the application,
the plaintiff has to prove three principles i.e. prima facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss. On the touch stone of above
principles, I would like to evaluate the averments made by both the
parties and I would like to juxtapose along with the documents
produced on record. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant
no.7 had taken the suit premises for development from defendant no.1
to 6 and the developer might start the development. The defendant
no.7, along with defendant no.1 to 6 are trying to obstruct the peaceful
occupation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff avert that, she is the senior
citizen and their father Nazareth D’costa was the original tenant at the
monthly rent of Rs.44/-. Her mother also died on 18.03.2001. She had
paid a rent to defendant no.1 up till April 2025. The plaintiff had
produced on record the copies of rent receipts which is issued in the
name of her deceased father. The rent receipts pertain to the year 2009,
2024, 2025.
8. On the perusal of rent receipts it appears that, there are
relationship of tenant and landlords with the defendant no.1 to 6. The
death certificates of her parents also shows the address of the suit
premises, which means they died in the suit premises. The ration card,
aadhar cards, election identity cards, senior citizenship card, bank
passbooks, electricity bills shows the address of suit premises.
Therefore, all the documents above it is clear that, the plaintiff is
/home/steno35/Steno35/Desktop 2/1LMSyed Court Room NO35/1 June 2026/16-06/Exh 8 RAD Suit No. 163 of 2025 injunction application.odt
-- 4 of 5 --
5
residing in the suit premises and is in occupation. The plaintiff issued a
notice to the defendant on 26.03.2025 showing her difficulty to vacate
the suit premises. Therefore, the plaintiff is having prima facie case in
her favour, moreover, balance of convenience is also in favour of
plaintiff. If the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit premises, then,
ultimately she will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated
in terms of money. Hence, I answer points no.1 to 3 as proved.
As to point no.4 :
9. As I have given my affirmative findings to points no.1 to3
in favour of plaintiff, therefore the application deserves to be allowed.
Hence, in response to point no.4, the application deserves to be
allowed. Hence, in the sequel I pass the following order.
:: O R D E R ::
1. Application is allowed.
2. The defendants no.1 to 7 are restrained from
causing interference in use, occupation,
possession of suit premises i.e. room no.3, Dias
House, 54, Irla Lane, Near Dolphin Aquarium,
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056 admeasuring
250 square feet carpet area of the plaintiff
and/or basic amenities such as electricity, water
supply etc. to the suit premises of the plaintiff.
3. Costs into cause.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(L.B.M.M.A Syed)
Date : 16.06.2026. Judge, C.R. No. 35 (B.B.)
Order dictated on : 16.06.2026.
Order checked & signed on : 16.06.2026.
/home/steno35/Steno35/Desktop 2/1LMSyed Court Room NO35/1 June 2026/16-06/Exh 8 RAD Suit No. 163 of 2025 injunction application.odt
-- 5 of 5 --