PETER CAJETAN TRAVASSO Vs. IGNATIUS PERERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The appellants-original owners of the property are taking exception to the order passed by the trial Court on 9 th November, 2011 thereby directing return of plaint for presentation to proper forum. Since the order passed by the trial Court is similar in all the matters, these Appeal from Orders are being disposed of by common judgment.

(3.) The appellants-original plaintiffs presented suit claiming possession of the suit property for mandatory and permanent injunction. Plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property and suit structure consisting of 14 looms in building no. 14A which according to plaintiff was completely gutted down due to fire on 12 th December, 2010. The total area of the suit structure is 1400 sq. feet and each of the defendant possesses an area to the extent of 100 sq. feet. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as a result of fire defendants-tenants are rendered homeless. The plaintiffs issued a letter to MHADA and informed that they are willing to bear the expenses of reconstruction of the structure and further requested the defendants 2 and 3 not to issue no objection certificate to defendant no.1 for reconstruction of the structure. According to plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 in each of the matter carried out construction activities which is illegal and not contemplated by provisions of MHADA Act. According to plaintiffs as a result of destruction of structure the tenancy of defendant no.1 came to an end and they do not have any right in respect of the suit land. The defendants also do not have entitlement to unauthorised construction over the suit premises. The plaintiff as such claims a decree of recovery of possession of the land.