SULOCHANA Vs. HARISCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the unsuccessful Plaintiffs.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of one Mr.Rajaram Tatya Gurav (deceased) and the Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of the deceased Rajaram. The dispute is about a room bearing no.24B/S.F in a newly constructed building, which is more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. The said room has been allotted in lieu of Room No.24 in Chawl No.1 at Parkar Wadi, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016. Room No.24 B/S.F. is hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" and the Room No.24 in Parkar Wadi is hereinafter referred to as "the earlier tenanted premises". The allegation in the plaint is that the Defendant No.1 got the rent receipt in respect of the earlier tenanted premises illegally transferred in his name. The Defendant No.2 is the Secretary of the Karnataka Co operative Housing Society Limited. The said society, according to the Plaintiffs, was entrusted with the job of reconstruction of the original chawl. The Defendant No.3 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, which has been established under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1976").

(3.) The case made out by the Plaintiffs is that one Bhikaji Atmaram Bhutal was the tenant in respect of the earlier tenanted premises. The case made out in the plaint is that the deceased Rajaram Tatya Gurav acquired the earlier tenanted premises from the said Bhikaji. It is stated in the plaint that in the year 1965, the son of the Rajaram s brother came to Mumbai and started residing with the family of the Plaintiffs in the suit premises. The case made out is that he also brought his wife and children to which the Rajaram did not raise any objection considering the close relationship. The son of the brother of deceased Rajaram is the Defendant No.1. The case made out in the plaint is that though there were minor differences between the Plaintiffs and the family of the Defendant No.1, they continued to stay in the earlier tenanted premises as members of the same family. It is stated that electricity charges were equally shared by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1. It is alleged that after the demise of the said Rajaram, the Defendant No.1 started torturing the Plaintiffs. It is alleged that the Defendant No.1 illegally got the rent receipt in respect of the earlier tenanted premises transferred in his name though there was no surrender by the Plaintiffs. It is contended that it was the duty of the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 to transfer the rent receipt in the name of the Plaintiff No.1. The earlier tenanted premises was demolished. It is alleged that the Defendant No.1 maneuvered to obtain the transit accommodation in lieu of the earlier tenanted premises and prevented the entry of the Plaintiffs in the transit accommodation. Various allegations have been made regarding the action of the Defendant No.1 of preventing the Plaintiffs from occupying the transit accommodation. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have no other premises.