Bombay High Court
Krishna Kamlesh Dattani And Ors vs Unique Enterprises India And Ors on 10 June, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-AS:23065
Neeta Sawant 44-wp-9799-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9799 OF 2023
Krishna Kamlesh Dattani and Ors. ....Petitioners
V/s.
Unique Enterprises India and Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________
Ms. Vrushali U. Kabare, for the Petitioners.
__________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 10 June 2024.
P.C. :
1. By this petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 20 June 2023 passed by the Small Causes Court on application at Exhibit-150 filed by Original Defendant No.6 (Respondent No.6) for his transposition as Plaintiff.
2. The suit has been originally filed by Narandas Purshottamdas Dattani, inter-alia, seeking a declaration that he was the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. Narandas had two sons, Kamlesh and Deepak. It appears that Kamlesh expired during lifetime of Narandas. During pendency of the suit, Narandas also expired on 19 September 2017. Upon death of Narandas, legal heirs of Kamlesh i.e. Petitioners made application at Exhibit-123 for bringing them on record as heirs of deceased Plaintiff. The ___Page No.1 of 3___ 10 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2024 01:41:43 ::: Neeta Sawant 44-wp-9799-2023.docx application was allowed on 15 February 2022. While allowing the said application on 15 February 2022, the Small Causes Court noticed prayer of Deepak for being added as legal heirs of deceased Narandas. The Court granted him liberty to adopt necessary steps with regard to his rights.
3. It appears that Defendant No.6-Deepak thereafter addressed letter dated 19 May 2022 to the Small Causes Court which was subsequently backed by way of application at Exhibit-60 seeking his impleadment as Plaintiff in the suit. The Small Causes Court considered the said application as the one for transposition of Defendant No.6-Deepak as Plaintiff and has allowed the same by order dated 20 June 2023.
4. Ms. Kabare, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would raise a serious objection to the order passed by the Small Causes Court on the ground that Defendant No.6-Deepak cannot set up a plea contrary to the Plaintiffs in the suit and in that in view of the contest between the Petitioners and Defendant no.6, the Small Causes Court could not have allowed his transposition as Plaintiff. In my view, both Petitioners as well as Defendant No.6-Deepak claim tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises after the death of Narandas. The order passed by the Small Causes Court would enable it to decide the issue as to whether Narandas was a tenant and after his death, who would be entitled to succeed to his tenancy rights. Thus, the impugned order enables the Small Causes Court to decide the contest amongst Petitioners and Defendant No.6-Deepak with regard to their claims about tenancy rights after the death of Narandas. Merely because Respondent No.6-Deepak is transposed as co-plaintiff, the same does not ___Page No.2 of 3___ 10 June 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2024 01:41:43 ::: Neeta Sawant 44-wp-9799-2023.docx mean that his rights in respect of the suit premises are automatically recognised. He will have to establish the same before the Small Causes Court by leading evidence.
5. In my view, therefore no serious error can be traced in the order passed by the Small Causes Court. The Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed without any order as to costs.
6. After the order is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks stay of the order for a period of 8 weeks in order to enable the Petitioners to test the order before the Supreme Court. It is seen that the impugned order is passed on 20 June 2023 and there is no interim order in favour of the Petitioners for last about one year. Considering this fact, as well as the fact that the order merely directs transposition of Defendant No.6 as Plaintiff, I am not inclined to stay the order. The request for stay is accordingly rejected.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SAWANT Date:
2024.06.12
21:11:41
+0530
___Page No.3 of 3___
10 June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2024 01:41:43 :::