LATA KAILASH SHARMA Vs. M/S ADITI CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the fact, that the premises in question had to be vacated by the petitioners before this Court in the year 2009, the petitioners have retained possession thereof till date. On 13.10.2014, we invited the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the impugned order wherein four weeks' time was granted by the High Court to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises. The aforesaid period expired on 8.10.2014, and yet the petitioners had not vacated the premises in question. It is therefore that the petitioners were directed to be present in Court in person. This is how the petitioners are present in Court in person.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over to us a communication dated 21.10.2014. The same is taken on record and is marked as Annexure -A. The aforesaid is a communication addressed by respondent nos. 4 to 6 to the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, as also to the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory, Mumbai. The same reads as under: "With reference to above, this is to inform you that pursuatn to order passed by their Lordship Mr. Justice Anoop V. Mohta & His Lordship Mr. Justice F.M.Reis, JJ., on 10/09/2014 in the above matter and thereafter or and direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. My client the Respondent No.4 Lata Kailash Sharma, 5. Anirudh Kailash Sharma and 6. Hemant Kailash Sharma have vacated their premises on 20/10/2014 accordingly, I have submitted the keys of the aforesaid premises, the present intimation is given to you for compliance of direction given by Hon'ble Court as mentioned hereinabove." (emphasis is ours)

(3.) It is not clear from the communication, to whom keys of the premises have been handed over. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 -M/s Aditi Construction states, that the premises has not yet been handed over to it. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically states, that there is absolutely nothing belonging to the petitioners lying in the premises. We are informed that the premises is locked, and the lock may be broken. We are satisfied that the petitioners have made all efforts to browbeat the process of law and to defeat the process of justice. Possession of one room with them has stalled the construction activity of the entire building since 2009, by keeping the judicial proceedings pending. Petitioner No.1, who is an elderly lady is presently exempted so as to enable her to hand over vacant possession to respondent no.1, before the next date of hearing.