LAWS(BOM)-1980-2-11

TEJOOMAL LAKHMICHAND Vs. M J TALEGAONKAR

Decided On February 04, 1980
TEJOOMAL LAKHMICHAND Appellant
V/S
M.J.TALEGAONKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In June 1950 the Plaintiffs purchased from its then landlords an immovable property with a building thereon situated at Hamam Street, Bombay. At that time the Bombay Zionist Association was shown as a tenant in respect of a part of the second floor of the building (hereinafter called "the said premises"). When the plaintiffs sent letters of attornment to the various tenants in the building, the letter of attornment addressed to the Association was signed by its then Secretary. In March, 1964 the Plaintiffs terminated the tenancy of the Association and filed a suit against it in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for its eviction. In the written statement filed by the Association in that suit it was contended that the Association was an unregistered association and that the suit as filed against it was not maintainable. The plaintiffs then sought an amendment of the plaint so as to make the suit representative in character. The amendment was not allowed. The plaintiffs filed a revision application against the order disallowing the amendment, which was dismissed. The plaintiffs withdrew that suit on 14th November, 1973.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed this suit on 23rd April, 1974. Defendant No. 1 herein is impleaded as representing himself and all other members of the Association. Defendants Nos. 2 to 13 are parties who have been put in possession of portions of the premises by the Association, while retaining for itself some portion thereof. It is contended in the plaint that, the Association being an unregistered body, no tenancy in law could have been created in its favour and the purported tenancy recognised by the plaintiffs without knowledge of the real status of the Association is void and not binding on the plaintiffs. In regard to the other defendants it is contended that, since they claim through the Association, they are trespassers in respect of the particular portions of the premises in their occupation.

(3.) Upon the contentions raised in the written statements, issues have been framed which I proceed to consider.