Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHSCA30008672024 Presented on : 30.08.2024
Registered on : 01.10.2024
Decided on :17.12.2025
Duration : Yrs. Mths. Days
01 03 17
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI
(APPELLATE BENCH)
(BANDRA BRANCH)
(R) APPEAL NO.67 of 2024
IN
R.A.D. SUIT NO. 719 OF 2013
Smt. Sudha w/d. of Somashankar Ananth
Prabhu (Presently Sudha R. Nayak)
Age: 52 years,Occ: Nil.
Address: C/o. Vaudev S Bandlekar,
Plot No. 84/5, Pushpa Park, Daftary Road,
Malad East, Mumbai-400097
Appellant
(Orig. Plaintiff)
Versus
1. Shri Shailesh Gala/ Suresh Gala
Age: not known Occ: Business
residing at Suresh Niwas, Manchubhai
Road, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097.
2 Smt. Jayanti w/d of Anant Prabhu
Age: 70 years, Occ: Housewife
residing at B-1, Lovely CHS Ltd.
Hawa Hira Park, Kurar Village
Malad (E), Mumbai-400097
Respondents
(Orig. Defendants)
Advocate Ms. Pallavi S.Vanjari/Adv. Shri. Vinod Thaker for appellant.
Advocate Mr. Shailesh Amin for respondents.
Coram : Shri Ashish A. Ayachit,
Addl. Chief Judge
&
Shri D.R. Mali, Judge.
C.R. No. 41 (B.B.)
Date : 17th Day of December, 2025.
-- 1 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::2::
JUDGMENT : (Per Ashish A. Ayachit, Addl. Chief Judge)
The original plaintiff, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the impugned judgment passed in R.A.D. Suit No. 719 of 2013 by
judgment dated 09.08.2024, delivered by the Court of Small Causes at
Mumbai, Bandra Branch (Court Room No. 33), has preferred the
present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of
Civil Procedure (“CPC” for short reference) and Section 34 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“MRC Act” for short reference),
whereby the suit for declaration for tenancy right of the plaintiff came
to be dismissed.
2. The parties have been referred to by their original
nomenclature as they stood in the original suit before the learned Trial
Court. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the
original defendants before the learned Trial Court.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:
3. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is that she has filed a
suit for declaration that she is a tenant of 50% share along with
defendant No. 2 in the commercial premises known as “Bharat Hindu
Hotel, Suresh Niwas, Ground Floor, Manchubhai Road, Malad (East),
Mumbai- 400097” and the
Pan Bidi shop adjacent to it with rear-side
residential room (referred to as the “suit premises”). The plaintiff
further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from disturbing her right and joint possession with defendant No. 2 and
from obstructing or interfering with the ingress and egress of the
plaintiff to the suit premises.
-- 2 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::3::
4. According to the plaintiff, the suit premises are owned by
defendant No. 1. It is stated that her father-in-law, namely Annath K.
Prabhu, (some places, mentioned as, ‘Anant’) was the original tenant of
the suit premises (referred to as the “original tenant”). It is stated that
the plaintiff married with the son of the original tenant, namely
Somashankar Anant Prabhu, on 05.12.1996 at Mumbai. Defendant No.
2 is her mother-in-law. The original tenant died on 02.10.1998, leaving
behind defendant No. 2(his wife), and the husband of the plaintiff as
his son. The husband of the plaintiff, Shri Somashankar Anant Prabhu,
died on 13.01.2002 in a road accident. Thus, defendant No. 2 and the
plaintiff are the only legal heirs of the original tenant and late
Somashankar Anant Prabhu.
5. The plaintiff further stated that defendant No.2, upon the
instigation of her brothers, harassed the plaintiff with the intention to
grab the joint family property. Therefore, around eight years ago, she
re-married one Mr. Ramnath Nayak of Bangalore and went to reside
there in the month of November 2009. However, the plaintiff was not
given her share in the family property of her deceased husband and
father-in-law. It is stated that her second marriage was not successful
and therefore she returned to Mumbai to reside with defendant No. 2.
6. It is stated that she has a 50% share in the suit premises
and also in another flat. In the months of January–February 2013,
defendant No. 2, along with her brothers, tried to dispose of the suit
premises. As the suit premises are commercial premises, the plaintiff
issued a legal notice dated 26.02.2013. Defendant No. 2 falsely replied
to the said notice. Defendant No. 1, being the landlord, issued a legal
notice for termination of tenancy of the suit premises by notice dated
-- 3 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::4::
20.04.2013. The plaintiff replied to the said notice and also forwarded
a copy to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2, by letter dated
25.05.2013, denied the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, along with
defendant No. 2, is a joint tenancy holder in respect of the suit
premises. Therefore, the plaintiff apprehended that the defendants
may, in collusion, damage her interest and rights. They are denying her
50% share and rights in the suit premises and therefore she was
constrained to file the present suit for declaration and perpetual
injunction.
DEFENCE OF DEFENDANTS:-
7. Defendant No. 1 has not contested the suit nor appeared in
the appeal proceedings and therefore the suit as well as the appeal
proceeded ex parte against defendant No. 1.
8. Defendant No. 2 has alone contested the suit by filing her
written statement. She admitted the relationship with plaintiff, but
denied that she has 50% right in the suit premises. It is stated that the
plaintiff’s suit is false. It is stated that the plaintiff was residing with
her for some time after the demise of her husband. However, she got
re-married with Ramnath K. Nayak and left the home. It is stated that
the plaintiff, with the intention to grab the property of defendant No. 2,
filed a false suit after eight years of the death of her husband. She has
no share in the suit premises and therefore she prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
ARGUMENT OF LEARNED ADVOCATES:-
9. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Vinod Thaker for the
appellant/plaintiff and learned Advocate Mr. Shailesh Amin for
respondent/defendant No. 2.
-- 4 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::5::
10. Learned Advocate Mr. Vinod Thaker for plaintiff opened his
arguments with the submission that the learned Trial Court has
excluded the plaintiff from her lawful right of tenancy. He took us to
the prayer clause of the plaint, and submitted that the plaintiff claimed
a declaration of joint tenancy with defendant No. 2. He submitted that
the suit premises are commercial premises. The learned Trial Court has
wrongly interpreted Section 7(15) of the MRC Act. He submitted that
mere re-marriage of a widow does not extinguish her rights. He
submitted that this Court is required to decide the right of tenancy after
the demise of the original tenant. He urged that if the legal heirs are
jointly running the business in the tenanted premises after the demise of
the original tenant, tenancy may be transferred in the name of one
person; however, it remains joint in nature and for the benefit of the
joint family, and therefore joint tenancy is required to be considered
unless there is a partition amongst the parties. He submitted that
Section 7(15) empowers this Court to decide who is the lawful tenant
after the demise of the original tenant in the absence of any agreement
between them. He took us through the relevant pleadings and evidence
and canvassed before us that joint tenancy is permissible.
11. Learned Advocate Mr. Vinod Thaker for plaintiff further
submitted that it is for the Court to decide whether it is joint or separate
tenancy and that there is no fixed provision of law. It is a novel concept
which needs to be interpreted properly, keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case. He submitted that a partition suit for joint
family property is filed before the City Civil Court and is sub judice.
However, as the 50% joint share in the suit premises is denied by the
defendants, declaration is necessary. He submitted that the learned
-- 5 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::6::
Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and legal provisions
and invited our attention to the relevant evidence and emphasized how
the evidence is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has a 50% right over
the suit premises.
12. According to Mr. Vinod Thaker for learned advocate for
plaintiff, mere licence standing in the name of defendant No. 2 alone
cannot be the sole ground to exclude the plaintiff from the legal rights
available under the statute and therefore he submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree are illegal, incorrect, and not based
upon proper appreciation of evidence. Learned Advocate Mr. Thaker
relied upon the following judgments and provisions of the MRC Act:
1. Cherotte vs. Cherotte Bharthi and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 610.
2. Baliram Atmaram Dhake vs. Rahubai, AIR 2009 Bombay
57.
3. Punithavalli Ammal vs. Minor Ramalingam & Anr., 1970
(1) SCC 570.
4. Romeo vs. Savitri (2016 (1) Mh. L. J. 463).
5. Miss Gool Rustomji Lala vs. Jai Rustomji Lala (1971 SCC
OnLine Bom 34).
6. Peddi Sivaiah and Ors. vs. Tekchand (1964 SCC OnLine AP
96).
7. Ashok Chintaman Juker & Ors. vs. Kishore Pandurang
Mantri & Anr. [(2001) 5 SCC 1].
8. H. C. Pandey vs. G. C. Paul [(1989) 3 SCC 77].
-- 6 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::7::
ARGUMENT OF LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT NO. 2:
13. To counter these arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Shailesh
Amin submitted that the facts of the present case are very peculiar and
are themselves very material for appreciation of the evidence. He
submitted that in the year 1998, the original tenant, who was the
father-in-law of the plaintiff, died and thereafter the mother-in-law was
running the hotel business in the suit premises. The husband of the
plaintiff had no role and therefore all licences were transferred in the
name of defendant No. 2. He further submitted that the husband of the
plaintiff died in the year 2002 and thereafter she got married and
resided at Bangalore. She filed the present suit and a partition suit only
after a lapse of eight years, solely to harass defendant No. 2. She was
not doing any business at the relevant time of the death of the original
tenant and therefore he submitted that the learned Trial Court has
properly considered the facts and circumstances and applied the correct
legal principles. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are
correct and no interference is called for. He requested dismissal of the
appeal with costs.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
14. Upon hearing both parties, the following points arise for
our consideration and determination. We have recorded our findings for
the reasons given below:
Sr. No. Points Findings
1. Whether plaintiff proved that she is
tenant of suit premises and holds 50%
share in the tenancy right under
No
-- 7 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::8::
provision of MRC Act ?
2. Whether plaintiff proved that she is in
joint possession of suit premises with
defendant No.2?
No
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for
declarationof tenancy and perpetual
injunction as prayed in the suit?
No
4. Whether the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial court
are legal, proper and correct?
Yes.
5. Whether interference is required in the
said impugned judgment and decree?
No.
6. What order? The appeal is
dismissed with
costs as per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 3:
15. Let us first note that the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai
is bestowed with jurisdiction only to decide, deal with and determine
disputes between the landlord and tenant regarding tenancy matters. In
the present suit, the plaintiff claimed that she derived the right of
tenancy in view of Section 7(15)(d)(i)(ii) of the MRC Act. After the
death of the original tenant, the plaintiff claimed a declaration of 50%
share in the suit premises. The learned advocate for the plaintiff,
during arguments, submitted that it is a joint tenancy for all legal heirs
of original tenant. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to determine
-- 8 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::9::
whether the plaintiff derived a 50% share in the tenancy rights as per
the provisions of law.
16. Let us further make it very clear that in the suit, the
plaintiff has also described another property owned by the joint family,
for which she has filed a separate civil suit for partition before the
Bombay City Civil Court, which is the proper forum for decision of
partition.
17. Thus, the dispute for our determination is very narrow, to
decide the tenancy rights under the MRC Act. The plaintiff filed a suit
against the landlord and defendant No.2, who is her mother-in-law,
and who also claimed tenancy rights derived from the original tenant
after his demise under Section 7(15)(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the MRC Act.
Defendant No.1, who is the landlord of the suit premises, has neither
participated in the proceedings nor disputed the tenancy rights of the
original tenant. Thus, the real controversy remaining for decision
before us is between the tenants interse, who derived the right of
tenancy after the demise of the original tenant.
18. The plaintiff and defendant No.2, during the trial, tendered
their evidence. Thus, the only their oral evidence and documentary
evidence available for appreciation and determination of their rights of
tenancy. The learned advocate Mr. Thaker, representing the plaintiff,
canvassed before us that exclusion of the plaintiff cannot be ordered in
the suit as it is a suit for declaration of joint tenancy. However, it must
be kept in mind that the initial burden of proof of tenancy rights is upon
the plaintiff and unless she establishes the same with probable
-- 9 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::10::
evidence, she cannot be considered as a 50% shareholder in the tenancy
rights of the suit premises.
19. The plaintiff, Sudha Annath Prabhu (P.W. 1), filed her
affidavit of examination-in-chief (Exhibit-26) and placed reliance upon
several documents viz., description of the suit property (Exhibit-28),
office copy of notice dated 26.02.2013 sent by the plaintiff through her
advocate to defendant No.2and four others along with five
acknowledgment cards [Exhibit-29 (Colly.)], reply notice dated
16.04.2013 received by the plaintiff’s advocate from defendant No.1’s
advocate (Exhibit-30), reply notice dated 30.03.2013 received by the
plaintiff’s advocate from defendant No.2’s advocate (Exhibit-31), reply
dated 10.05.2013 sent by the plaintiff to the legal notice for termination
of tenancy sent by defendant No.1 (Exhibit-32), copy of legal notice for
termination of tenancy dated 20.04.2013 received by the plaintiff
(Exhibit-33), copy of reply dated 21.05.2013 sent by defendant No.2 to
the advocate of defendant No.1 and advocate of the plaintiff (Exhibit-
34), copy of reply of the plaintiff dated 04.06.2013 to the letters dated
23.05.2013 sent by the advocate of defendant No.2 (Exhibit-35), office
copy of letter dated 10.05.2009 sent by the plaintiff to defendant No.1
(Exhibit-68), and office copy of letter dated 27.06.2011 sent by the
plaintiff to defendant No.1 (Exhibit-69).
20. Per contra, defendant No.2, Jayanti Annath Prabhu (DW-1),
tendered her affidavit of examination-in-chief (Exhibit-40) and relied
upon the following documents viz., original rent receipts dated
24.03.2000 and 04.02.2012 issued by defendant No.1 in respect of
Shop Nos.4 and 5 bearing Bill Nos.211 and 249 (Exhibits-43 and 44),
-- 10 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::11::
original rent receipts dated 04.02.2012 and 25.03.2000 issued by
defendant No.1 in respect of Room No.3 bearing Bill Nos.250 and 212
(Exhibits-45 and 46), original telephone bill issued in the name of the
plaintiff’s husband Mr. Annath K. Prabhu (Exhibit-47), police license
dated 23.06.2004 issued by the Police Department in favour of
defendant No.2 in respect of Bharat Hindu Hotel (Exhibit-48), original
water connection bill issued by MCGM in favour of Mr. Annath K.
Prabhu (Exhibit-49), payment receipt No.0165555 issued by MCGM
(Exhibit-50), water connection bill issued by MCGM in favour of Mr.
Annath K. Prabhu (Exhibit-51), payment receipt No.5355135 issued by
MCGM (Exhibit-52), Health Licence No.761428099 issued by MCGM
(Exhibit-53), Health Licence No.761435657 issued by MCGM (Exhibit-
54), Registration Certificate in respect of Bharat Hindu Restaurant
issued by MCGM (Exhibit-55), original renewal receipt No.701463
issued by MCGM (Exhibit-56), Registration Certificate in respect of
Bharat Bidi Shop issued by MCGM in the name of defendant No.2
(Exhibit-57), and renewal receipt No.701464 (Exhibit-58).
21. The learned trial court, while dealing with and appreciating
the evidence, held and observed that defendant No.2 was running the
hotel business exclusively even at the time of death of her son and
husband and therefore she derived and inherited the entire tenancy
rights in the suit premises in view of Section 7(15)(d) of the MRC Act.
22. To examine whether the aforesaid observation is proper,
legal and correct and based upon the evidence, we have re-appreciated
the entire evidence on record. Let us note some undisputed and
admitted facts as under:
-- 11 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::12::
(i) The original tenant was running a hotel, Panbidi
shop, and the rear portion was used for residential
purposes in the suit premises. He died on 02.10.1998,
leaving behind defendant No.2(his wife), and a son namely
Somashankar Prabhu (husband of the plaintiff).
(ii) It is also admitted that the husband of the plaintiff,
Mr. Somashankar Prabhu, died on 13.01.2002.
(iii) It is also admitted that thereafter the plaintiff
married Ramnath Nayak in November 2009 and shifted to
Bangalore.
(iv) It is also admitted that her second husband died and
thereafter she returned to Mumbai.
(v) It is also an admitted fact that she has filed a
separate suit for partition in the City Civil Court in respect
of joint family property, which is still sub judice.
23. The plaintiff, in her affidavit of examination-in-chief,
deposed in tune with her pleadings. However, her cross-examination is
sound and makes it very clear that she was neither doing any business
with her father-in-law at the time of his death in the suit premises nor
was she participating in the business with her husband during his
lifetime. It is also revealed from her cross-examination that she has
neither paid any rent to the landlord at any point of time. She was and
is not in possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff is not aware of the
area of the residential premises in the suit property. She is unaware of
all factual aspects of the business, which clearly indicates and
demonstrates that she was not doing any business.
24. On the contrary, if the evidence of defendant No.2, Jayanti
Annath Prabhu (DW-1), is perused, it is crystal clear that she holds all
-- 12 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::13::
necessary licences of shops and establishments to run the business in
the suit premises. It is also admitted that she paid rent after the demise
of her husband and was doing business. Her son though helped her, but
he was not running the business with her.
25. The definition of Section 7(15) of the MRC Act, if read
carefully, makes it crystal clear that a tenant includes, in relation to the
premises, when the tenant dies, any member of the tenant’s family who
was residing with him in the case of residential premises and doing
business in the case of commercial premises at the time of his death, is
entitled to derive tenancy rights in the suit premises. In the case at
hand, defendant No.2, being the wife of the original tenant and having
been doing business with him, inherited the tenancy rights.
26. The learned advocate for the plaintiff vehemently argued
that in the absence of an agreement, the members of the deceased
tenant’s family or heirs of the deceased tenant are jointly entitled to
inherit the tenancy rights. However, this argument cannot hold water
and is not acceptable in view of the settled legal position.
27. So far as the judgments cited by the learned advocate for
the appellant in the cases of
Cherotte Vs. Cherotte Bharthi and Ors.1,
Baliram Atmaram Dhake Vs. Rahubai2, and
Punithavalli Ammal Vs.
Minor Ramalingam & Anr.3 are concerned, those are in respect of Joint
Hindu Family property and the rights of a widow and her rights after
remarriage. There is no confusion or room for doubt about the legal
position of the rights of a widow in joint family property. However,
1 (2008) 2 SCC 610.
2 AIR 2009 Bombay 572.
3 1970 (1) SCC 570,
-- 13 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::14::
those case laws are not relevant or applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
28. The other case law of
Romeo Vs. Savitri 4 is regarding the
suit premises were commercial premises let out to the original tenant.
The wife of original tenant, after the death of the original tenant,
claimed tenancy rights as a legal heir of the deceased tenant.
Thelandlord contested this claim, arguing that wife was not using the
premises for commercial purposes at the time of the tenant’s death, and
therefore did not qualify as a “tenant” under Section 7(15)(d) of the
MRC Act. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the revision application
filed by the landlord and upheld the orders of the Trial courts declaring
Savitri (Wife) as the lawful tenant. It is held that that Section 7(15)(d)
creates two distinct categories; (1) Family members using the premises
for business at the time of death; and (2) In their absence, any legal
heir of the deceased tenant. Thus, requirement of a legal heir to also
prove commercial use would make the second category redundant,
which is impermissible in statutory interpretation. In the present case,
defendant No.2 falls in the first category and therefore this judgment is
not helpful or beneficial to the plaintiff to establish her right.
29. In another judgment of
Miss Gool Rustomji Lala Vs. Jai
Rustomji Lala 5, the issue was also regarding inheritance of tenancy
rights. Late Rustomji Lala was the contractual tenant of a flat. He lived
with his children petitioner (Miss Gool Rustomji Lala) and respondent
(Jal Rustomji Lala). In 1954, Rustomji made a will giving all his
moveable property and the tenancy right in the flat to his daughter
4 (2016 (1) Mh. L.J. 463).
5 (1971 SCC Online Bom 34)
-- 14 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::15::
(petitioner). Rustomji died on 12 March 1958. Petitioner obtained
probate in 1964 and sought a declaration she alone was tenant.
Meanwhile, respondent (brother) claimed that, as a member of the
deceased tenant’s family residing with him, he too was entitled to be
declared tenant under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
The Hon’ble High Court held that, in interpretation of Section 5(11)(c)
of Bombay Rent Act , only one person can be declared tenant when
multiple family members claim rights; the Court must select one
suitable person. The
singular in Section 5(11)(c) should be understood
in context. The Court cannot declare joint tenants under that provision,
though the Will in favour of the daughter was relevant, the Court chose
not to interfere with the trial Judge’s declaration due to peculiar family
circumstances (continued co-occupation, contribution to family
expenses, and acquiescence by the landlord). Thus, in our humble
opinion, this judgment is also not helpful to establish the plaintiff’s right
in the present case.
30. The judgment in the case of
Peddi Sivaiah and Ors. Vs.
Tekchand 6 of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court is altogether
based on different facts and circumstances and, in our view, it will not
be beneficial to the plaintiff.
31. In the case of Ashok Chintaman Juker & Ors. vs. Kishore
Pandurang Mantri & Anr.7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered
the issues whether the consent decree in the eviction suit is binding on
other family members, who claim tenancy rights under Section 5(11)
(c) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 and whether a member of the
6 (1964 SCC Online AP 96)
7 [(2001) 5 SCC 1].
-- 15 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::16::
family who was not impleaded in the eviction suit can resist execution
of the decree. It is held that the tenancy rights of the original tenant’s
family members continued jointly after his death under Section 5(11)
(c) the Bombay Rent Act, i.e., they became joint tenants. Defendant
who was impleaded and accepted as the tenant by the landlord in the
eviction suit, represented all tenants (family members) in respect of the
premises. Therefore, the decree of eviction was binding on all members
of the family who derived their tenancy rights from the original tenant,
even if not impleaded individually.
32. Last citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. C.
Pandey vs. G. C. Paul 8, where the issue was whether a notice to quit
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act addressed and served
on one heir of a deceased tenant is valid to terminate tenancy that
devolved jointly on all heirs. The Hon’ble Supereme Court held that on
the death of the original tenant, tenancy rights devolve on the heirs and
continue as a single tenancy and there is no division of premises or
rent; the heirs succeed as joint tenants. Because the tenancy is a single
unit, a notice to quit served on one heir was sufficient to terminate the
tenancy for all.
33. The last two judgments pertain to notice of termination of
tenancy where joint tenancy is claimed, and they are also not helpful for
deciding the claim of the plaintiff.
34. Considering the entire discussion and evidence, it is crystal
clear that defendant No.2 holds and derived the tenancy rights in the
suit premises. The plaintiff was neither running any business at the time
8 [(1989) 3 SCC 77]
-- 16 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::17::
of the death of her father-in-law nor during the lifetime of her husband
or at the time of death of her husband. Thereafter, she remarried and
left Mumbai. It is defendant No.2 who was doing business and who
produced all documentary evidence such as licences and rent receipts to
establish her right to derive the tenancy rights. Thus, the plaintiff failed
to prove her right of 50% share in the suit premises.
35. We, therefore, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, are of
the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration of any tenancy
right or 50% share in the suit premises. Moreover, admittedly she is not
in possession and therefore there is no question of granting any
injunction in her favour. In such circumstances, we answer Points No.1
to 3 in the negative.
AS TO POINTS NO.4 AND 5:
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment passed by
the learned trial court is based upon proper appreciation of evidence
and correct application of legal provisions and therefore cannot be
faulted. It does not suffer from any illegality or incorrectness and hence
no interference is required in the appeal. Accordingly, we answer Points
No.4 and 5.
AS TO POINT NO.6:
37. In view of the aforesaid findings, the appeal fails. So far as
costs of the appeal are concerned, they follow the event. Accordingly,
we answer Point No.6 and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is dismissed with costs.
-- 17 of 18 --
Appeal No. 67 of 2024 Judgment..
::18::
(2) The impugned judgment passed in RAD
Suit No.719 of 2013 dated 09.08.2024
by Court of Small Cause, Bandra Branch,
Mumbai (Court Room No.33 B.B.) is
hereby confirmed.
(3) The plaintiff shall pay costs of appeal to
the defendant No.2 and shall bear her
own.
(4) The decree be drawn accordingly.
(5) The Record and Proceeding of the Trial
Court be returned to deposit it in the
record room as per rules.
(6) Notify the judgment to the learned Trial
Court.
I Agree,
(Dipak R. Mali) (Ashish A. Ayachit)
Judge Addl. Chief Judge,
C. R. No. 41 C. R. No. 41
Court of Small Causes,(B.B) Court of Small Causes,(B.B)
17.12.2025 17.12.2025
Judgment dictated on : 17.12.2025
Judgment transcribed on : 17.12.2025
Judgment checked & signed on : 17.12.2025
/home/pa31/Varsha Wankhade/A. A. AAyachit/December-2025/Appeal/67-2024 (R) Appeal date 17.12.2025.odt
-- 18 of 18 --