BHOJARAJ Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of suit by Small Cause Court.

(2.) Facts leading to the case are as under:

(3.) The present petitioners, who are plaintiffs, filed ejectment suit seeking relief of possession and also mesne profits @ Rs.5,000.00 per month from the date of suit till respondent-defendant hands over actual possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners of a commercial shop with red tile roofed building in a ground floor and first floor bearing CTS No.3560/1B of CTS Ward No.1, measuring north-south 11 feet and east-west 17 feet with extra gallery. The petitioners claim that they are owners of suit schedule property having purchased the same along with adjacent properties from its previous owner viz., Smt. Sushila @ Tukkubai W/o. Vishwanathsa Chavan and others through a registered sale deed dtd. 7/7/2017. The petitioners also contended that the purchase was communicated to the defendant and on account of attornment, respondent-defendant was directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.145.00 per month to the petitioners. The petitioners-plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that the respondent-defendant has failed to pay the rent regularly. It was also contended that since the property purchased by the petitioners is in dilapidated condition and unfit for occupation, the petitioners were issued with a legal notice from HDMC authorities to handover the possession and were directed to vacate the occupants and co-operate for demolition of the building. The petitioners also claim that the tenancy of the respondent-defendant came to an end by afflux of time and in this background, the petitioners requested the respondent-defendant to pay the rents and handover the vacant possession. However respondent- defendant has neither paid the arrears of rent nor has he vacated the premises. Hence, petitioners issued notice to the respondent-defendant to vacate the shop premises. Inspite of issuance of notice, the respondent-defendant did not vacate the shop premises and therefore, left with no other alternative, the petitioners filed a suit before the Small Cause Court seeking possession of the property in question.