NARAYAN SADASHIV BHALERAO Vs. NAVNITDAS NARAYANDAS BARSHIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for possession and damages in relation to Block No. 4 described with precision in Ex. A which is an annexure to the plaint.

(2.) THE block aforementioned, hereinafter referred to as the "flat", or "suit flat", is part of a larger building belonging to the fourth defendant which is a co-operative housing society registered under the Bombay Co-operatives Societies Act, 1925 and deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Defendant 4 is a tenant co-partnership variety society. Sadashiv, whose legal representatives the plaintiffs 1-A and B, are had by a notice given to defendant 1 on 9-6-1966 called upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit flat to him. The notice not having been complied with, Sadashiv filed a dispute being A. C. No. 729 of 1966 under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act ). That dispute is still pending. A little later the society also filed a dispute against defendant 1 and obtained an award. The said award was set aside in appeal and the matter remanded for a reconsideration. That proceeding is also pending. To counter the two proceedings, defendant 1 instituted R. A. D. Suit No. 759/4776 of 1969 in the Court of Small Causes, claiming a declaration about his being the societys tenant entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act) and injunctions to restrain Sadashiv and the society from going ahead with the proceedings initiated by them. The trial Court held that defendant 1 was inducted into the flat as a licensee by Sadashiv, that there was relationship of a landlord and tenant between the society and him and that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint was ordered to be returned to defendant 1 for presentation to the proper Court. Defendant 1 assailed the order by Appeal No. 382 of 1983. The Bench hearing the appeal held that defendant 1 was inducted into the flat by Sadashiv and that he was not a tenant of the society. These findings led the Bench to dismiss the suit, though it was of the view that prima facie the suit as framed was within section 28 Rent Act jurisdiction. Much before the decision in the above suit, Sadashiv had filed the present suit.

(3.) SADASHIVS claim, later adopted by his son and grand daughter, is to the effect that defendant 1s licence came to an end within 11 months of May/june 1954. He had no right to retain possession. Not only did he do so, defendant 1 had gone ahead and inducted defendants 2 and 3 into the suit flat. The occupation of defendants 2 and 3 was illegal. All the three defendants were trespassers and were liable to be evicted and to further pay Rs. 74,230/- representing unpaid licence fee and compensation as detailed in Ex. D annexed to the plaint. No relief was claimed against the society.