UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VULCAN ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 26th July, 2011. Thereafter, further written submissions have been filed by the Advocate for the Respondents. On 14th August, 2008, this Court directed that the appeal shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

(2.) With a view of appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are the original Plaintiffs and the Appellant is the Defendant No. 1. The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The case made out by the Plaintiffs in the plaint is that the Plaintiff No. 1 is an association of tenants of the office premises situated at Vulcan Insurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 and the Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 10 are the members of the Association. It is contended that the Plaintiffs are the tenants and the authorized occupants in respect of the office premises in the same building. In the plaint, it is pointed out that initially the building was owned by the M/s. Vulcan Insurance Company Limited and subsequently, the asset of the building vests in the Appellant. It is contended that the notices have been issued by the Appellant to some of the occupants rendering them as unauthorized occupants. It is contended that though the tenancy is purported to be terminated by the Appellant, the procedure under the Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1971") has not been followed. It is contended that right from the inception of the respective tenancies, the Appellant and other tenants are parking their cars in the open space of the suit property as of right and as the tenants thereof. It is contended that the Plaintiffs have been paying monthly rent to the Appellant inclusive of the rent for car parking. The allegation in the plaint is that the Plaintiffs have right as tenants to park the cars in the compound of the building. It is alleged that the Appellant is trying to prevent the Plaintiffs from parking the respective cars in the compound of the building and therefore, a decree for perpetual injunction has been claimed restraining the Appellant from preventing or obstructing the Plaintiffs from parking their cars in the compound at respective places.

(3.) The suit was contested by filing a written statement. Various contentions have been raised including the contention regarding bar of jurisdiction. One of the contentions raised is that the suit was barred by section 15 of the said Act of 1971.