SHAKUNTALA SAHADEVRAM TIWARI Vs. HEMCHAND M SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant were the respondents in Writ Petition No. 5391 of 1985 in this Court and defendants in the suit for eviction filed against them by the plaintiff for their eviction, the petitioner in the writ petition and respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the appellants and the respondent will hereafter be described as the defendant and plaintiff respectively.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history. The plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises. He filled R. A. E. Suit No. 1326/3557 of 1979 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for possession of the suit premises against defendant-tenants. Ex-parte decree for possession was passed by the trial Court on January 20, 1981. This decree was executed on June 11, 1981. Subsequently a miscellaneous applications was filed by the defendants for restoration of the suit. By an order dated August 11, 1981, the notice was made absolute and the suit was restored. Thereafter the plaintiff filed appeal bearing No. 530 of 1981 in the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay which was dismissed on July 6, 1982. Subsequent thereto the plaintiff took out Miscellaneous Notice No. 755 of 1982 in the aforesaid appeal and by consent the suit was ordered to be placed before the trial Court for hearing and final disposal. By a judgment and order dated November 11, 1982, the trial Court again passed a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants appeal there against being Appeal No. 667 of 1982 was, however, allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by the judgment and order dated September 20, 1985, but that was done on the ground of limitation only, and consequently the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment and order dated September 20, 1985 passed in appeal by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, both plaintiff and defendants filed separate writ petitions bearing Nos. 5391 and 5515 of 1985. It is not necessary to refer in detail as to what happened during the pendency of the two writ petitions before this Court. Suffice it to say that Writ Petition No. 5391 of 1985 filed by the plaintiff was eventually allowed and Writ Petition No. 5515 of 1985 by the defendants was dismissed. The relevant judgment and order of this Court is dated November 28, 1986.