Gujarat High Court
Narottambhai Ranchhodji Patel Through ... vs Prabhavati Widow Of Sunderlal Zaverlal ... on 29 May, 2020
Author: J. B. Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 230 of 2002
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 454 of 1977
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
NO
thereunder ?
==========================================================
NAROTTAMBHAI RANCHHODJI PATEL THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS & 7
other(s)
Versus
PRABHAVATI WIDOW OF SUNDERLAL ZAVERLAL DESAI & 10 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RS SANJANWALA for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
(MR GN SHAH) for the Respondent(s) No. 8
(MR GN SHAH)(751) for the Respondent(s) No. 7
ABATED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,5
MR KI SHAH for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,7
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 11,4,6
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,9
==========================================================
Page 1 of 14
Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020
C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI
Date : 29/05/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI) 1 This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act is at the instance of the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgement and order dated 9th November 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the First Appeal No.454 of 1977.
2 The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal can be gathered from paras 1 to 2.8 of the impugned judgment and order as under:
"2.1 A piece of land admeasuring 200 feet by 200 feet of the ownership of plaintiff from Survey No.159, Hissa No.13 of Village Kodara, Taluka Palsana, District Surat, was let out to deceasedSundarlal Zaverlal Desai and defendant Nos.5 and 6 for installing only a patrol pump and a small cabin at a monthly rent of Rs.199/. The tenancy was to start from first of English Calendar month to the last date of the month. Electricity bill was also to be paid by the plaintiff apart from electric fitting work. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the heirs of deceased Sundarlal Zaverlal Desai. According to plaintiff, the defendants have committed breach of the agreement not only by subletting the suit land by defendant Nos.1 to 6 to defendant Nos.7 and 8, who again sublet the same to defendant Nos.9 to 11, but the defendant Nos.6 and 7 made construction in contravention of the plan by making permanent structure on the land also. It was stated by the plaintiff that though he is entitled to recover rent from 171964, it was held in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1965 and in Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 1970 that plaintiff would be entitled to recover rent from 171 1965 onwards and hence, a notice was served upon the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to pay him an amount of Rs.16,915/being the rent for the period from 1711965 to 2921972 at the rate of Rs.199/ per month together mense profit of Rs.34/. Since the defendants did not pay the due amount to him, a suit being Special Civil Suit No.47 of 1972 was filed before the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) claiming the aforesaid amount.Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
2.2 The defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 did not file any written statement.
2.3 However, defendant No.5 filed written statement at Ex.39 contending that suit is filed in collusion with defendant Nos.6 and 9. Since the defendant No.7 wanted to start a patrol pump, he along with deceased Sundarlal found out the suit land suitable for patrol pump and hence, a fraud was committed by the defendant Nos.6 to 9 against Sundarlal and defendant No.5 gave dealership to defendant No.9. It was further contended that suit land was hired for a period of 20 years and it expires on 14101983 and hence, the suit was premature and plaintiff would not be entitled to claim possession of the suit land. The construction of only a small cabin and patrol pump on the suit land is not admitted by defendant No.5 and according to him, subletting of the suit land is not barred as per the rent note. It was not admitted that defendant Nos.9,10 and 11 were the subtenants of defendant Nos.7 and 8. It was further contended that since the construction was made as per the plan, defendant Nos.1 to 6 have not committed any breach of the terms of tenancy. It was submitted that the Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff on the same ground was dismissed. Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 1970 preferred against the dismissal of the suit was also dismissed by the District Court and hence, the present suit by the same party on the same cause of action is barred by the principle of resjudicata. It was denied that rent was due from 111964 or 1711965 at the rate of Rs.199/ per month and hence, an amount of Rs.16,915/ claimed by the plaintiff towards rent and Rs.34/ towards mense profit was also denied. It was also denied that the suit notice, though not received by him, was not legal and valid. According to him, suit land was not damaged as it was used and occupied by defendant Nos.7 to 11. It was stated that suit was time barred and since Second Appeal No.540 of 1970 filed against the judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1965 was pending between the parties at the relevant time, suit was not tenable. It was further stated that since the litigations were going on between the parties since 1965 and also since the subtenants I.e. defendant Nos.7 and 8 did not pay any rent to defendant Nos.1 to 6, the plaintiff would not entitled to recover any rent from defendant Nos.1 to 6 till the proceedings are concluded and hence, the suit be dismissed with costs.
2.4 The defendant Nos.7 and 8 also filed written statement at Ex.58 contending that since they were authorised to sublet the suit land vide rent note dated 15101963 executed between the deceased Sundarlal and the defendant Nos.5 and 6, suit land was sublet to the defendant Nos.7 and 8, the lawful subtenants. It was also contended that though they were entitled to sublet the suit land, they denied to have sublet the suit land to defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11. According to them, defendant No.9 was a dealer of patrol pump and defendant Nos.10 and 11, who were rendering services to the customers visiting the patrol pump, were neither sub tenants or licensees nor the suit land has been assigned or transferred to Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT them. They also denied to have made more construction than what is shown in the plan. Though necessary constructions were permitted to be carried out by the plaintiff in his presence by spending an amount of Rs.1,50,000/, this false suit in collusion with defendant Nos.5 and 6 was filed by the plaintiff and though they showed their readiness and willingness to pay rent by replying to the suit notice, same was not accepted by the plaintiff. According to them, plaintiff would be entitled to recover rent from 2711965, I.e. the date of starting of the patrol pump. Since the Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 1965 as well as the Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 1970 preferred by the plaintiff on the same grounds were dismissed by the Courts, present suit was barred by principle of res judicata. It was stated by them that since the suit land was sublet to them on 111964, rent from 1164 to 31121965 was paid to the deceased Sundarlal and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and rent for six months from 1 11965 paid by cheque as well as rent paid by cash thereafter was not accepted by them as they are in collusion with the plaintiff, no fault was fault committed by them. It was also stated that amounts deposited by them towards rent in Regular Suit No.18 of 1965 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Bardoli for specific performance of the agreement has not withdrawn by the plaintiff, instead filed the false suit. Since the Regular Suit No.18 of 1965 was dismissed, appeal was filed and same was allowed thereby relief for specific performance of the agreement was granted. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.4,000/ deposited in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1965 was not withdrawn by the plaintiff and hence, the suit may not be entertained and be dismissed with costs.
2.5 The defendant No.9 also filed his written statement at Ex.47. It was contended that he was not a subtenant but only a dealer of defendant Nos.7 and 8 having no concern with the agreement executed between the deceased Sundarlal and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and, therefore, he is not a necessary party to the suit. He was also denied to have made any illegal constructions on the suit land and also any damage caused to the suit land as it was used by defendant Nos.7 to 11, but value of it was increased as patrol pump was installed by the defendant Nos.7 and 8. It was stated that defendant Nos.10 and 11 were not subtenants of the suit land but they were rendering services to the customers and finally it was prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
2.6 In the written statement submitted by the defendant No.10 at Ex.40, it was contended that he is a subtenant of the suit land and he was kept there for providing facilities to the customers coming to the patrol pump. It was stated by him that he is running a hotel on the kachha shed made by the defendant No.9 on the suit land.
2.7 In the written statement submitted by the defendant No.11 at Ex.51, it was contended that he is not subtenant of the suit land and he was wrongly joined as a party. It was stated that he is doing the work of Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT shaving on the kachha shed made by the defendant No.9 on the suit land and he never used to pay any rent for that.
2.8 Necessary issues for determination were raised by the learned Judge at Ex.60. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat has decreed the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 31121976 which is giving rise to file the present first appeal."
3 The Trial Court framed the following issues at Exhibit : 60:
"(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit premises were taken on lease by late Sundarlal Zaverlal Desaid, husband of defendant No.1 and defendant nos.5 and 6 at the rent of Rs.199/ P.M. on terms and conditions as mentioned in para - 1 of the plaint ?
(2) whether the plaintiff proved that defendant nos.1 to 6 had sublet to defendant nos.7 and 9 and they in turn had sublet to defendant Nos.9, 10 and 11 and that defendant Nos.1 and 6 thereby committed breach of the specific condition of the suit lease as alleged?
(3) Is it proved that defendant Nos.6 and 7 made permanent structures in the suit premises as alleged ? If yes, what is its effect?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in arrears of rent from 1.1.1964 to the tune of Rs.16,949/ as alleged?
(5) Whether the suit in the present from is not maintainable?
(6) Whether the suit is premature?
(7) Whether the suit is barred by rejudicata?Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
(7A) Whether the plaintiff proves that Bombay rent Act is not applicable to the suit premises as pleaded in para 2 of the plaint?
(7B) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 are profiteering as alleged in para 2 of the plaint?
(8) Deleted.
(9) Whether the suit is not within limitation?
(10) Deleted.
(11) Whether rent of Rs.199/ p.m. is not reasonable ? (12) Whether the suit notice is legal and valid?
(13) Deleted.
(14) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession? (15) What order ? What decree?"
4 The aforesaid issues came to be answered by the Trial Court:
"(1) In affirmative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In negative.
(4) In affirmative (5) In negative.
(6) In negative.
(7) In affirmative for issue No.2, 3 and 7A.
(7A) In affirmative (8) Deleted.
(8A) Deleted.
(9) In negative.
(10) Deleted (11) Does not arise.
(12) In affirmative.Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT
(13) Deleted.
(14) In negative. If rent due is paid within 15 days from 31.12.76 otherwise in affirmative.
(15) As per order and decree."
5 The final order passed by the Trial Court reads thus;
"ORDER It is hereby ordered and decreed that the defendants Nos.1 to 8 do deposit rent of Rs.19,949/ (Rupees Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty nine only) by 15.1.1977 in the court. If they pay Rs.16,949/ by 15.1.1977 then the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs.
If the defendants fail to deposit RS.16,949/ by 15.1.1977 then it is hereby ordered and decreed that the plaintiff do recover the vacant possession of the suit land from the defendants together with rent from 22.3.1969 to the date of the suit at Rs.199/ per month mense profits are fixed at Rs.199/.
In any case the defendants to bear the it own costs as well as the costs of the plaintiff.
Decree by drawn accordingly."
6 Being dissatisfied with the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants herein preferred First Appeal before this Court. The First Appeal came to be dismissed vide judgement and order dated 9th November 2001. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the First Appeal, observed in paras 9 and 10 respectively as under:
"9. Here in this case, as discussed earlier, a peculiar circumstance has arisen wherein firstly the plaintiff has filed the Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1965 for the same cause of action and same has been decided between the parties upto the appellate level and it has become final between the parties and as held by the Court below, vide rent note Ex.101, the lessee has got right to sublet the property and, therefore, it has been sublet to the Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT defendant Nos.7 and 8 which is quite legal. It appears that the defendant No.6 is the brotherinlaw of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 have not appeared and defended the suit and all of them, in collusion with the plaintiff, has come against the defendant Nos.7 and 8 and, therefore, they have not paid the rent to the plaintiff instead deposited the rent into the Court below in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1965. However, Court below has categorically held in the judgment delivered in the present suit that calling for the money deposited in another suit in another Court cannot be ordered to be paid to plaintiff and after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, he has put Sec.114 of the Transfer of Property Act in motion and and it is clear from the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties including the case of Ladhuram (supra) that relief against forfeiture can be granted at any stage. It is also established that the appeal is a continuation of proceedings and, therefore, even it can be granted at appellate stage as held by the Calcutta High Court and, therefore, Court below has rightly given benefit to the defendants looking to various aspects of the matter including the law laid down by the Courts and I do not find it necessary to interfere with the said finding either on facts or on law. As far as the contenting of expiry of lease period is concerned, looking to the peculiar facts of this case, question of efflux of time cannot be decided at this stage as it raises many other questions for which, opportunities are required to be granted to the parties. In these circumstances, the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that as lease period has already expired during the pendency of this appeal, the decree may be passed at this stage, cannot be taken into consideration. If at all appellants have got any right on any aspect, they are entitled to avail the same which may be available to them under the law. But same cannot be granted here at this stage as, I have discussed earlier, there are points which may arise and, therefore, this Court cannot deal with the above point here at this stage.
10. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as rent not Ex.101 and going through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the opinion that judgment and decree passed by the Court below are just, legal and proper.
Reliance can be placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3452 in the case of Laxmidas Bapudas Barbar and another Vs. Smt.Rudravva wherein it has been held as under:
"After enforcement of Rent Act a fixed term contractual lessee can, during subsistence of the lease, be evicted only on grounds of eviction provided under the Rent Act and that too only if such grounds have been provided as one of the grounds for forfeiture of lease rights in the lease deed."
Hence, in view of the judgments delivered in Shyamlal Agarwala and also Laxmidas Bapudas Barbar, the contention raised by the learned counsel Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT for the appellants that since the lease period has expired during the pendency of the First Appeal and hence, decree for possession should be passed by this Court cannot be accepted and hence, the present First Appeal is required to be dismissed."
7 Heard Mr. S. H. Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Meenu G. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.7 and 8 respectively.
8 Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel submitted as under:
"That both the Courts have erred in giving relief against forfeiture and no conditional decree could have been passed by the learned Trial Court. In view of clear wordings of Section 114 which provides that tenant to deposit (not the sublessee) pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making & decree for ejectment, pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred. In the said Section, it is clearly provided that only the lessee can be relieved against forfeiture if he fulfills the conditions of Section 114. It is pertinent to point out that without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant, that no conditional decree could have been passed, even assuming that such decree has been passed, it is an admitted position that the lessee has failed to deposit the full amount and cost as envisaged under Section 114 and, therefore, the relief against forfeiture was bound to be revoked. In any view of the matter, in view of the fact that for last 30 to 40 years, no rent has been paid by anybody or deposited in the Court, and that the lease has come to an end by afflux of time under Section 111 of the Transfer of Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT Property Act, the appellant is entitled to the decree for possession within a stipulated time directing the respondents to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession forthwith and the dishonest plea of the said defendants may not be accepted.
That the findings of the learned Single Judge that the suit is barred by res judicata is also required to be set aside for the simple reason that the arrears are claimed after dismissal of the suit for the period other than for the period for which the earlier suit was filed and the doctrine of res judicata even does not at all in this case. That the learned Single Judge ought to have erred that the unauthorized construction has been put up on the land in question and it was given on sublease to other defendants who are now no more interested in continuing with the same and have remained exparte. That the subletting was clearly proved and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the decree on all the grounds prayed for in the suit."
9 Ms. Meenu Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.7 and 8, with her usual fairness, submitted that as on date, the petrol pump is not functioning. It has been many years by now that the petrol pump is not functioning. With all fairness at her command, Ms. Shah submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order.
10 The subject matter of dispute is the property bearing land admeasuring 200 feet in width and 200 feet in length of the ownership of the plaintiff from survey No.159 of village Kadadara, Taluka Palsana, District Surat.
11 It was a lease for the petrol pump (Exhibit : 101) The lease deed came to be executed on 15th October 1963 by the lessor Shri Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT Narottambhai Ranchhodji in favour of the lessee Shri Sunderlal Zaverlal Desai (2) Shri Kantilal Fatechand Varaiya and (3) Shri Chhotubhai Ranchhodji Patel. The period of lease provided under the said Lease Deed is 20 years with an option to get it renewed for another 10 years. The Lease Deed does not provide for subletting in ordinary since but has given right to transfer or assign leasehold rights together with the stock in trade and goodwill of the running business. There is no provision for subletting the land. The period of 20 years expired.
12 The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.47 of 1972 inter alia for the relief for possession and mesne profit. The grounds were taken that the tenant is in arrears of rent that he has sublet the premises and that he has put up permanent construction contrary to the provisions in the Lease Deed. The Trial Court decided the suit on 31st December 1979. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit land is situated in Village Kadodara whereas the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are not made applicable. No cross objections are filed against the said finding of the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by the res judicata, that there is no subletting and that on the ground of permanent structure was also rejected. However, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 16,949/ but gave benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and relieved the tenant from the relief of forfeiture on the condition that he should deposit the rent of Rs.16949/ by 15th January 1977 and when the same is done, then the decree of forfeiture will not follow and if the same is not paid, the decree should become final. The plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession together with the rent from 22nd March 1969 to the date of the suit @ Rs.199/ per month mesne profits which are fixed at Rs.199/ per month. It is submitted that no relief could have Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT been granted against forfeiture to the sublessee under Section 114 of the Tenancy Act and even the amount as mentioned in the said order is not deposited by any of the defendants with the result that the decree for possession will automatically follow.
13 Against the said judgment and decree, First Appeal came to be filed on 7th February 2001. During the pendency of the First Appeal, 10 years period came to an end and the lease has come to an end even otherwise by afflux of time under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the said First Appeal has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 9th November 2001 and the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the said judgment and order which is perfectly maintainable in law. It was mainly contended in the First Appeal that the finding regarding res judicata is wrong that there is in fact subletting and there is a permanent construction without the permission of the landlord contrary to the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed and that no relief could have been granted to the sublessee or the tenant against the forfeiture. Even otherwise, the lease has come to an end by afflux of time and, therefore, the decree for possession ought to follow without any further consideration. That the finding that there is wrong unauthorized construction is wrong. However the Learned Single Judge, has wrongly decided not to decide that question through it was on admitted fact.
14 During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, very important facts have taken place. Therefore, the appellants filed Civil Application No. 10378 of 2009, inter alia, pointing out all the developments and prayed that in view of the subsequent developments, the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and decree for possession may be granted. Along with the said application, the documentary evidence was Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT also produced by the appellants.
15 No effective reply was given to the said Civil Application but mere technical objections were raised. In the said Civil Application, in view of the subsequent developments, following points are pressed :
(i) That none of the respondents have paid rent for the last more than 30 years. The original lease was for 20 years which has expired. There was renewal clause for 10 years more for which no renewal was ever taken by any of the respondents and the period of 30 years has also expired. So, the lease has come to an end by afflux of time and, therefore, straightway, decree for possession is required to be passed.
(ii) The original lease was for the Petrol Pump, but the Petrol Pump is already closed. The license for the Petrol Pump Which was granted in favour of respondent No.9 in favour of Gandhi Service Station Petrol Pump has also expired on 31.12.2005 and thereafter, there is no renewal and at present, no petrol pump is functioning on the land in question.
(iii) Even the order dated 1.2.2018 to bring Cheque has not been complied with by the only contesting respondents which remains decree must follow.
(iv) The photographs would indicate that that no petrol pump is functioning on the land in question and it has become defunct.
None of the respondents are either paying rent to the applicants or have deposited the same with the Trial Court and only because the Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020 C/LPA/230/2002 CAV JUDGMENT Letters Patent Appeal is pending, the applicants are not in a position to take over the land in question and use the same or earn rent or in any way utilize the same.
16 In view of this, it is submitted that the decree ought to follow. The new circumstances which are pleaded in the Civil Application will be referred to at the time of hearing.
17 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the First Appeal No.454 of 1977 dated 9th November 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Suit No.47 of 1972 is hereby allowed. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are hereby granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The respondents Nos.7 and 8 hereby are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful position of the suit property within a period of two months from today.
18 The Registry shall draw the decree accordingly.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, J) CHANDRESH Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Fri May 29 23:04:09 IST 2020