Bombay High Court
Lekhraj M. Solanki vs Babu Vira Bhamaniya on 5 September, 2011
Author: G.S.Godbole
Bench: G.S.Godbole
1 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
srj
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 603 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Babu Vira Bhamaniya
Shed No.15, Census No.7 5/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA/Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 604 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Ratan L. Bariya
Shed No.28, Census No. 5 8/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA/Defendant)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
2 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 605 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Sonu N. Jadhav
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Nanu Narayan Jadhav)
Shed No.19, Census No.7 2/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA/ Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Gangwa
Shed No.37, Census No.6 3/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents(Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
3 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 607 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Bijal S.Wagela
Shed No.25, Census No.5-5/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 608 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.142 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Maria Mascarenhas
(L.H. of deceased Edwin Mascarenhas)
Shed No.10, Census No.7-10/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant of
CRA./Defendant)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
4 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 609 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Mrs. Kuwar B. Jadhav
2 Kisan B. Jadhav
3 Yogesh B.Jadhav
4 Sangeeta B. Jadhav
5 Usha B. Jadhav
6 Vasant Govind
7 Shantu Bharat
(L. H. & Rep. of deceased
Bhima Jhoda Jadhav)
Shed No.39, Census No.6 5/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 610 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
5 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
1 Kuwar B. Jadhav
2 Kisan B. Jadhav
3 Yogesh B. Jadhav
4 Sangeeta B. Jadhav
5 Usha B. Jadhav
6 Vasanti Govind
(L. H. & Rep. of deceased
Lakhu Narayan Jadhav)
Shed No.21, Census No.5 -1/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
ig WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 611 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Hira Singh
Shed No.27, Census No. 5-7/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
6 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Laxmi V. Bhamaniya
2 Mhongi R. Bhamaniya
3 Pravina B. Bhamaniya
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Vira Giga Bhamaniya)
Shed No.54, Census No. 6 19/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
ig WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Bhagwant J. Makwana
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Laxmi Jiva Makwana)
Shed No.24, Census No. 5 4/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 614 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148 OF 2008
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
7 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Rukmini V. Tambe
2 Rajesh V. Tambe
3 Rakesh V. Tambe
4 Kalpana Vijay
5 Geeta V. Tambe
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Vasant Sonu Tambe)
Shed No.31, Census No. 4 2/2,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 615 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Ms. Kamal Mohite
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Mrs. Gangaben Mohite)
Shed No.30, Census No. 5 10/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
8 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 616 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Jayanti A. Makwana
L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Jamna Arjun Makwana)
Shed No.12, Census No. 7 8/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 617 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Sonu N. Jadhav
2 Smita N. Jadhav
3 Akshay N. Jadhav
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Lakhu Narayan Jadhav)
Shed No.23, Census No. 5 3/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
9 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 618 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
ig in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Meena G. Jadhav
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Lakhu Narayan Jadhav)
Shed No.22, Census No. 5 2/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 619 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
10 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
V/s.
Sarju Lakdawala
Shed No.49, Census No. Nil,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL AAPPLICATION NO. 620 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Hamir C. Bhamaniya
Shed No.17, Census No. Nil,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 621 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
11 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Mrs. Dulari B. Kewat
Shed No.53, Census No. 6-18/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 622 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Bhana Wagela
Shed No.8, Census No.7 11/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
12 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
1 Daiben D. Solanki
2 Vivek D. Solanki
3 Bhanu D. Solanki
4 Nanbai D. Solanki
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Devat Kana Solanki)
Shed No.46, Census No. 6 13/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2010
ig IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.159 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Jeevi H. Wagela
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Kadviben Bhika Wagela)
Shed No.26, Census No. 5 6/10,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
13 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Mahadev Shivnath
Shed No.4, Census No. 6 10/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
ig WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 626 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Mrs. Mona J. Lodh
2 Mahesh J. Lodh
3 Ramesh J. Lodh
4 Asha J. Lodh
5 Sandeep J. Lodh
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Jagdev Lodh)
Shed No.45, Census No. 6 12/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
14 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
1 Sahehdub R. Burma
2 Devtadeen R. Burma
3 Tulsi R. Burma
(L.H. & Rep. of deceased
Ramlal Burma)
Shed No.47, Census No. 6 14/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondents (Applicants
of CRA./Defendants)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 628 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Karuna Shankar
Shed No.50, Census No. 6- 15/20,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
15 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 629 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 ig .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Chintaman L. Jadhav
Shed No.41, Census No.6 - 7/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./ Defendant)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.166 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Babulal Ramdulari
Shed No.3, Census No. 7 16/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
16 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./ Defendant )
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 631 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
ig in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Kaledeen D. Huba
Shed No.40, Census No.6 - 6/20,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./ Defendant )
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 632 OF 2010
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2008
1 Lekhraj M. Solanki
2 Jasoda Lekhraj Solanki
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay - 400 050 .. Applicants (Respondents
in CRA/Org. Plaintiffs)
V/s.
Ram Bhankar
Shed No.11, Census No. 7 - 9/17,
Rajaram Wadi, Plot No.2,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::
17 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
Waroda Road, Bandra (W),
Bombay 400 050. .. Respondent (Applicant
of CRA./Defendant)
Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. M. S. Lagu i/b. Mr. J. G. Damani,
for the Applicants.
Mr. V. G. Mehta along with Mr. Omar Khaiyam i/b. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh,
for the Respondent/s.
....
CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J.
ig DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2011.
JUDGMENT:-
1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
2 All these Civil Applications are identical. The controversy involved in all these Civil Application and the Civil Revision Applications is same. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties are same and common questions of law and facts are involved. Even earlier, all these Civil Application were clubbed together for hearing. Hence, by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, all these Civil Applications are disposed off by common Judgment.
3 Hence, only facts in Civil Applications No.603 of 2010 in Civil Revision Application No.137 of 2008 which is treated as the lead Civil ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 18 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw Applications are being narrated.
4 By these Civil Applications, the Applicants who are original Plaintiffs/ landlords in suit filed under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for eviction in respect of the open land have prayed for following reliefs:-
(a) A date is to be fixed for final hearing of this Civil Revision Application along with other connected 47 Civil Revision Application i.e. Civil Revision Applications No.31 of 2008 to 46 of 2008 and CRA No.137 of 2008 to 168 of 2008 in respect of suit plot of land which was given to various Respondents/Defendants on tenancy basis and against whom decree has already been passed by the competent Court of law.
(b) The present Respondents/ Defendants is to be restrained by order of injunction from parting with the possession of their super- structure or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever and will not carry out any work of additions and alterations of permanent nature of their super-structure standing on the suit land, without the leave of court.
(c) The present Respondents/Defendants to deposit in court @ Rs. 8000/- per month w.e.f. 18/07/2005 i.e. from the date of decree till date and continue to deposit the said amount per month in court as compensation payable to present Applicants/ Original Plaintiffs/decree holder on or before 15th of each month till disposal of the Civil Revision Applications and till realization of possession i.e. present Respondents/ Defendants hand over possession of the land to the present Applicants/ Original Plaintiffs.
(d) In the event of any default by the present Respondents / Defendants to pay the amount as directed then stay be vacated and the present Applicants/Original Plaintiffs/ decree holder shall be given liberty to execute the decree forthwith and to recover the possession from the present ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 19 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw Respondents/Defendants without any reference to the Hon'ble Court.
5 The landlords had filed suits for eviction in respect of open land against the various Defendants on various grounds under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. By Judgment and Order dated 15th July, 2005 and 16th July, 2005, all the suits were decided and the decree for eviction was passed.
The Defendants who were shown as tenants, filed Appeals in the Small Causes Court. During pendency of the Appeals, the execution of the decree was stayed by the Appellate Bench by order dated 6th May, 2006. This order was challenged by filing Writ Petition Nos.5200 of 2006 and 5274 of 2006, which were disposed off by common Judgment dated 25th January, 2007 and the Appeals were directed to be heard expeditiously. Thereafter, the Appeals were decided on 13th September, 2007. All the Appeals were dismissed and by operative clause (c), the decree of injunction has been granted against all the Appellants in the Small Causes Court/ Defendants in the suits who are Applicants in the Civil Revision Applications.
6 Aggrieved by the said orders, these Civil Revision Applications and certain other Civil Revision Applications were filed which were contested at the stage of admission and by order dated 6th July, 2009, all the Civil Revision Applications have been admitted, hearing is expedited and interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (c), thereby staying the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 20 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw execution of the decree for possession.
7 Thereafter, the Applicants/Original Plaintiffs have filed these Civil Applications and had also filed several other Civil Applications. The Applications were filed essentially for imposing condition regarding payment of compensation for grant of stay on all the Defendants. By Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 2010, a learned Single Judge (Justice A.S. Oka) had decided and allowed the said Civil Applications bearing Civil Application No.475 of 2010 in Civil Revision Application No. 31 of 2008 and all other connected Civil Applications including the Civil Applications being disposed off by this Order. At that time, this Court had proceeded on the basis that Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate was appearing for all the Defendants/Applicants in the Civil Revision Applications and on that basis, all the Civil Applications were allowed. The following order was passed :-
(i) The Applicants in the revision applications shall pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month which shall be inclusive of agreed rent and permitted increases from the date of decree passed by the trial Court till the disposal of the revision applications.
(ii) The arrears payable up to 31st December, 2010 shall be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31st March, 2011.
(iii) The revision applicants shall keep on depositing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month from January 2011 onwards with the trial Court on or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 21 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw before 10th day of every calendar month.
(iv) In the event the revision applicants commit any default, the original Plaintiffs will be entitled to apply to this Court for vacating the interim relief.
8 Thereafter, the Respondents in the present Civil Applications filed various Civil Applications for recalling the order dated 20th December, 2010 on the ground that Advocate Mohan Kumar was not representing them, but Advocate Omar Khayam Shaikh was representing them. After verifying the record when it was clear that the Respondents herein were, in fact, not represented by Advocate Mohan Kumar but were represented by Advocate Omar Shaikh, the said applications were allowed and following order was passed:-
(i) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
(ii) On 20th December, 2010, several civil applications were decided by this Court by a common order. The said civil applications were taken out by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the revision applications. While disposing of the revision applications, this Court heard Shri Mohan Kumar appearing for the revision applicants in some of the revision applications. By these applications, it is pointed out that in certain civil application which were decided by an order dated 20th December, 2010, Shri Mohan Kumar was not representing the revision applicants and in fact, Shri Omar Khaiyam Shaikh was representing the revision applicants.
It is contended that this Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that all the revision applicants were represented by Shri Mohan Kumar, Advocate.
(iii) Report of the Registry was called for. The report dated 15th February, 2011 of the Registry records that the applicants in these applications were being represented by Shri Omar Kahiyam Shaikh, Advocate in the revision ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 22 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw applications. Thus, it appears that Shri Mohan Kumar did not represent the applicants in these applications. Therefore, the order dated 20th December, 2010 which is a common order passed in several civil applications will have to be recalled only in respect of those applications wherein Shri Omar Khaiyam Shaikh was representing the revision applicants.
(iv) Accordingly, the present civil applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
(v) The restored civil applications shall be placed before the appropriate Court.
9In these circumstances, these Civil Applications are now placed for hearing.
10 Affidavit In Reply has been filed by Shri Babu V. Bamania, Respondent in Civil Applications No.603 of 2010, which states that the same should be treated as common Affidavit In Reply in all the Civil Applications.
11 The learned Senior Advocate for Applicants has advanced the following submissions:-
(i) Since the decree for eviction has been passed, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Atmaram Properties and in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s. Super Max and since the decree for eviction has been stayed, the Defendants must to put to condition of deposit ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 23 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw of market rent.
(ii) The learned Advocate submits that considering the location of the suit premises in Bandra (West) which is an important and affluent suburb of Mumbai and considering the fact that the premises are situated near Mehboob Studio and Lilawati Hospital etc., the fair market rent should be fixed at the rate of Rs.80 per sq. feet per month.
(iii) He also prays for an injunction and a request is also made to fix the date of final hearing for deciding all Civil Revision Applications.
12 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents canvassed the following submissions:-
(i) there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between Applicants and Respondents. The Conveyance executed in favour of the Applicants nowhere indicates the names of Respondents and hence there is no relationship of landlord and tenants. Hence, Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction and hence, the order for deposit of market rent cannot be passed.
(ii) The Plaintiffs claimed mesne profits @ only Rs.10.00 per sq.ft. and hence, the Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any additional amount as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 24 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw interim market rent.
(iii) Since the entire area has been declared as slum area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, by notification dated 16th July, 2009 published in Official Gazette on 29th July, 2009; the decrees are not capable of execution unless and until the sanction of the competent authority under Section 22 of the said Act is obtained. Further, even the power to fix the fair rent in such case vests exclusively with the Competent Authority under the said Act and hence, this Court does not have jurisdiction to even fix the interim market rent as a condition for grant of stay.
(iv) Relying on the letter written by the Assistant Assessor & Collector, 'H' Ward of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai addressed to Mr. Kishan Jadhav of 10th December, 2010, it is submitted that the rateable value is Rs.315/- and the monthly rent is Rs.30/-. It is further submitted that considering the said rateable value, it would be inequitable to fix any amount more than the rent as interim market rent as a condition for stay of execution.
(v) During the pendency of the Appeals before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by order dated 6th May, 2006, the execution of the decrees for eviction had been stayed only on the condition of deposit of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 25 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw rent and no condition regarding deposit of any amount more than the rent of the suit premises had been imposed. All these orders were challenged by the Plaintiffs/Applicants by filing Writ Petition Nos.5200 of 2006 and 5274 of 2006 which were disposed off by common order dated 25th January, 2007 and hence, since even during the pendency of the Appeal before the Small Cause Court, only the rent was directed to be; it would not now be open to the High Court to fix any higher amount to be deposited as a condition for stay of decree. According to the learned Advocate for Respondents, the earlier order dated 25th January, 2007 operates as Res Judicata.
(vi) When the Civil Revision Applications were pending for admission, the Respondents herein who were Applicants herein, have filed Affidavit In Reply and had opposed the grant of interim relief, wherein they had, inter alia, prayed that the Applicants therein/Respondents herein should be put to condition of deposit of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. per month, as rent. While issuing Rule on all the Civil Revision Applications on 6th July, 2009, the learned Single Judge (Justice R.V. More) had not imposed any such condition and, hence, it would not be now open to this Court to consider the Applications, since no such condition was imposed at the time of admission of Revision Applications. According to the learned Advocate for Respondents, such a condition can be imposed only at the time of admission of the Revision Applications.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 :::26 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw 13 In rejoinder, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants submits that the area may have been declared as slum, but the decrees for eviction which had been passed earlier, are not affected and all that is required is to obtain sanction for execution from the Competent Authority, but in view of the interim orders in Civil Revision Applications, whereby, decrees for possession is stayed, such a question does not arise at this stage.
It is also submitted that the order dated 25th January, 2007 passed in group of Writ Petitions referred herein above, makes it clear that the said order should not be construed as a consent of the Plaintiffs for grant of stay and the question regarding merit of the controversy and rent and mesne profits had been left open.
14 It was also submitted that when Revision Applications were admitted, though replies were filed to oppose admission; separate Civil Applications were not filed and hence the order dated 6th July 2009 will not be a bar and in any case it is also open to file separate Civil Applications in terms of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above.
15 I have carefully considered the submissions. In so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, two Courts have concurrently held that relationship of landlord and tenant exists. These findings are subject matter of challenge in Civil Revision Applications and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 27 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw the Civil Revision Applications will be heard on merits and the said issue will be decided at that stage. However, at this stage, one will have to proceed on the basis that a landlord and tenant relationship exists. Hence, the first objection of the learned Advocate for Respondents need not detain this Court from considering the Civil Applications on merits.
16 In so far as objection regarding the averments in the plaints quantifying the mesne profits at a sum of Rs.10.00 per sq. ft is concerned;
perusal of the averments in the plaints shows that these suits were filed in the year 1990, referred to the rent which was payable at Rs.10.80 per month. Different rents are indicated in the different suits. It is obvious that even if a suit for eviction under the Rent Act is filed, the landlord-tenant relationship continues till a decree for eviction is passed by the competent Court. In respect of the premises governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 there is no question of termination of tenancy which issue is well settled by the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of V.Dhanpal Chettiwal V/s. Yeshodai Ammal, A.I.R. 1979 S.C.-1745;1979 (4) SCC Page-214. Hence, the landlord cannot claim any amount in excess of rent. There is a prayer for determination of mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suits have been decreed and the decrees are confirmed in Appeals. The standard rent which was claimed in the suit cannot be the market rent. This aspect has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 28 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw also been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Atmaram Properties.
17 In so far as objection regarding declaration of slum is concerned, the said declaration is after the Judgment of the Appellate Court. Merely because the property is declared as slum, the decrees do not become inexecutable automatically. All that is required is to obtain the prior permission from the Competent Authority under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Act, 1971. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants submits that if there is a decree which is already passed and the declaration of slum is subsequent, no permission of the competent authority is required. However, at this stage, for deciding these Civil Applications, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of that submission. Suffice is to say that since by an ad-interim order passed in the Civil Revision Applications, execution of the decrees for eviction is stayed;
at present, the landlord cannot execute the decrees and the question whether sanction of the competent authority is necessary or not is redundant at least at this stage. Hence, mere declaration of slum subsequent to the impugned Judgment cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer for fixing the market rent.
18 The reliance placed on letter from the MCGM Officer referred to above regarding the rateable value does not carry the case of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 29 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw Respondents any further, for the simple reason that rateable value is fixed on the basis of the standard rent. The market rent cannot be determined on the basis of the rateable value.
Though the rent of the respective suits premises and rateable value is less, one cannot over look the fact that while the suits are filed in the year 1990; on account of various reasons, the decision of the suits have taken several years. The landlord could get the decree for eviction after 15 years, Appeals were dismissed thereafter and today a period of almost 21 years has lapsed from the date of filing of the suits. In such a situation, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for Respondents and accepting it would be clearly overlooking the reality namely the substantial increase in the market rent for the similar premises.
The submission of the learned Advocate for Respondents that even this market rent can only be fixed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Act also does not have merit for the simple reason that once the execution of the decree for possession is stayed, the exercise of determination of fair market rent as a condition for fixation of stay will have to be done by this Court and the same cannot be done by Competent Authority under the said Act.
19 The order dated 25th January, 2007 passed in the earlier group of Writ Petitions, does not decide any controversy on merits. In fact, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 30 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw learned Single Judge has recorded that the order was passed by consent of the parties. The question regarding rent and mesne profits was specifically left open and what was essentially does was to expedite the hearing of the Appeals.
20 In the present case, though by prayer clause (a), the Applicants have prayed for expediting hearing of Civil Revision Applications; in view of large number of Civil Revision Applications which are pending from the year 2006 onwards, it is not possible to give any priority to this Civil Revision Application and I am, therefore, inclined to reject prayer clause
(a). The Civil Revision Applications can't be heard and order for deposit of compensation equal to fair market rent will have to be passed. In view of this, the aforesaid order dated 25th January, 2007 passed in group of Writ Petitions can't either be treated as Res Judicta or prevent this Court from considering the applications on merits. While rejecting the prayer clause
(a), liberty can be granted to the Applicants to renew the said request after reasonable time.
21 In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the learned Advocate for Respondents states that undertakings have already been filed by the Respondents. Case for granting injunction is made out. In fact, even the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes while passing the order dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 31 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw 6th May, 2006, granted stay an injunction and the said order had been noted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in order dated 25th January, 2007.
22 In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, each of the Applicants in the Civil Revision Applications shall pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month which shall be inclusive of agreed rent and permitted increases from the date of decree passed by the trial Court till the disposal of Civil Revision Applications. The arrears payable up to September, 2011 and compensation for October, 2011 shall be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31st October, 2011. The Revision Applicants shall keep on depositing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month from 1st November 2011 onwards with the trial Court on or before 10th day of every calendar month. In the event the Revision Applicants commit any default, the original Plaintiffs will be entitled to apply to this Court for vacating the interim relief.
23 The last submission regarding the order dated 6th July, 2009, admitting the Revision Applications and granting interim relief without imposing any condition on the Defendants/Applicants in the Civil Revision Applications cannot also be accepted and it is difficult to hold that the said order operated as Res Judicata. In the first place, the said order nowhere records that the request of Respondents was considered. Secondly, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:50 ::: 32 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw order admitting the Civil Revision Applications and granting interim relief cannot decide any controversy finally. Thirdly, even though, the Revision Applications are earlier admitted and decree for possession is stayed; the Court is not denuded of its power to fix compensation as a condition of continuation of stay. In a similar situation, this issue is also been decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice A. M. Khanwilkar) in Civil Application No.1162 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.3051 of 2001.
24In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Applicants in all Civil Revision Applications who are Respondents herein, will have to be put to reasonable terms as a condition for continuation of the interim order of stay of decree for eviction. The Trial Court has passed the decree for eviction on 15th July, 2005 and 16th July, 2005, the Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeals on 13th September, 2007. In companion Civil Application where the earlier order dated 10th December, 2010 has not been recalled, the learned Single Judge has fixed monthly compensation at the rate of Rs.5.00 per sq. ft per month, inclusive of permitted increases from the date of decree passed by the Trial Court till the disposal of the Revision Applications. The arrears were to be deposited within a time stipulated in the said order.
25 Though the said order has been set aside qua the present ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:51 ::: 33 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw Respondents, since their Advocate was not heard, the said order passed in respect of the suit premises in the companion suits and Revision Applications will have to be considered as a bench mark for fixing the monthly market rent. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants has handed over a chart indicating the area of open land below the structure.
The learned Advocate for Respondents states that he is unable to make any submissions about the correctness of the said chart since the same is not given to the Respondents earlier. However, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the question as to what is the area of the suit premises. For the purpose of fixing the market rent, the area indicated in the Plaint in the respective suits, will have to be considered.
26 While passing the order dated 20th December, 2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court has already fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. Considering the location of the suit premises and considering the facts that the suit premises are open land, wherein the structures are constructed by the respective Defendants who are enjoying the same and considering the area of the suit lands, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month, as already fixed is just, fair and reasonable.
27 The learned Advocate for the Applicants prays that the Applicants may be permitted to withdraw either the entire amount or a part ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:51 ::: 34 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw of the amount. This prayer is opposed by the learned Advocate for Respondents by pointing out that there is no such prayer made in the present Civil Applications. However, this order will not preclude the Applicants from making such prayer by filing separate Application/s and as and when such separate Application/s is/are filed, they will be considered on their own merits.
28 In view of this, I pass the following order:-
(a) The prayer for fixing the early date of hearing as made in prayer clause (a) of these Civil Applications is rejected for the time being. Depending on the large pendency of earlier Civil Revision Applications, Applicants will be at liberty to renew the same prayer after one year.
In the meantime, if the Revision Applications reach for hearing, they will be heard according to their own turn.
(b) Case for grant of interim relief of injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) is made out and accordingly, there will be injunction in terms of prayer clause (b).
(c) Each of the Applicants in the Civil Revision Applications shall pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month which shall be inclusive of agreed rent and permitted increases from the date of decree passed by the trial Court till the disposal of Civil Revision Applications. The arrears payable up to September, 2011 and compensation for October, 2011 shall be deposited with the trial Court on or before 31 st October, 2011. The Revision Applicants shall keep on depositing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft. per month from 1st November 2011 onwards with the trial Court on or before 10th day of every calendar month. In the event the Revision Applicants commit any default, the original Plaintiffs will be entitled to apply to this Court for vacating the interim relief.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:51 :::35 11-cas-603-2010-group.sxw
(d) As and when the amounts are deposited, the same shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit of Nationalized Bank earning maximum interests and the deposit shall be automatically renewed without awaiting any further directions from this Court till the disposal of the Civil Revisions Applications.
(e) Applicants are at liberty to file an Application for withdrawal of part of the amount for payment of monthly tax. As and when such Applications/s is/are filed, the same will be considered on its/their own merits in accordance with law.
(f) All the Civil Applications are disposed off, with no order as to costs.
(G.S.GODBOLE, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:41:51 :::