ANAND D GAIKWAD Vs. SAIFEE A GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay by separate orders dated 15-11-1999 on Interim Notice Nos. 1201 of 1998, 1199 of 1998 and 1200 of 1998 respectively. The respondents have filed 3 separate suits against each of the petitioner herein before the Small Causes Court at Bombay being RAE Suit No. 499/1197 of 1993, 493/1196 of 1993 and 495/1198 of 1993. The said suits were filed for possession of shop Nos. 1 to 6 on the ground floor of Noor Manzil, corner of Parel and Chinchpokali at Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-27. It is not in dispute that each of the petitioner is the tenant in the said suit premises prior to the suit building was purchased by the respondents herein in the year 1992.

(2.) THE suit for possession has been filed against each of the petitioner only on the ground of sub-letting. The petitioner resisted the said suit by filing written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents filed applications being interim Notice Nos. 1201, 1200 and 1199 in the respective suits praying that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner be directed to deposit the sum mentioned in the notice given by the respondent dated 5-2-1988 and to pay the rent and outgoing charges as specified in the said interim notices. The petitioner resisted the said application. Petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was not in arrears in any manner. On the other hand, it was contended that the petitioner had already deposited the requisite amount due and payable in respect of the suit premises towards taxes and repair cess and the monthly rent with the Court Receiver, High Court. Nevertheless, the petitioner in para 8 of the reply specifically urged that the respondents should furnish the requisite information and the break up of the amount so as to enable the petitioner to effectively assail the correctness of the claim and submit further reply. The petitioner placed on record that the respondents failed to furnish the information in spite of repeated requests and as such the petitioner was at a loss to effectively reply to the claim set up by the respondents in the interim notices.

(3.) INSTEAD of furnishing the necessary information and placing on record any contemporaneous documents which would justify the claim made in the interim notices, the Court, without insisting for the said particulars, proceeded to decide the interim notices by impugned orders dated 15-11-1999. The Court below clearly acted in excess of jurisdiction in proceeding with the matter and in recording the finding that the petitioner was liable to pay the exorbitant amount without any document in support of the said claim. It is relevant to point out that in the suit presented by the respondent, admittedly the respondents have claimed that monthly rent in respect of the suit premises varying between Rs. 100/- to Rs. 532/- and Rs. 798/ -. By no stretch of imagination the claim set up by the respondents to the extent of about Rs. 18 lacs by way of interim deposit can be said to be acceptable by any standards. It appears that the interim notices for directing the petitioner to deposit the exorbitant amount of Rs. 18 lacs were taken out only with a view to pressurise the petitioner.