SONI JIVRAM JAYRAM OF BOMBAY INDIAN INHABITANT CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF MESSRS J J AND CO Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Petition, the Petitioners, who have already been evicted from the premises in question in execution of the decree passed against them in the year 1996, have prayed that as per the policy of the Respondents, their lease should be continued as they are ready to pay rent and the Respondents be directed to accept the Petitioners as their direct tenants in respect of Plot No.24, situated at Mazagaon Tank, Bunder Estate, Mumbai.

(2.) The disputed portion of land was originally let out by the Respondents BPT to one Ishwarlal G Desai. The said I G Desai sub let the portion of the plot to one M L Patel who in turn inducted the present Petitioners as his sub tenants. The status of the Petitioners accordingly was a sub tenant of a sub tenant and there was no direct relationship as tenants and landlord between the Petitioners and the Respondents BPT. It seems that in the year 1996, the Respondents BPT filed a suit being BCCC Suit NO.4576/66 against the heir of original lessee I G Desai. The said suit was ultimately decreed in July 1980. At that time, the Respondents BPT initiated proceedings for execution of decree but the Petitioners obstructed the same. In view of said obstruction, the Respondents filed Chamber Summons being No.871/82 for removing the obstruction raised by the Petitioners. In the said proceedings consent terms were filed by virtue of which the Respondent No.1 agreed to allow the Petitioners to occupy the premises on the terms mentioned therein. As per the said consent terms, the Petitioners had given an undertaking to quit and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents without having to resort to execution on or before 31 st March 1989. On the basis of said undertaking the Petitioners were permitted to occupy the suit premises up to 31 st March 1989. Since the Petitioners did not vacate the premises, the decree was thereafter executed and the Petitioners have been dispossessed by virtue of execution of the decree for possession.

(3.) As pointed out earlier, the decree was passed against the original lessee and the Petitioners, who were inducted by the sub tenant of the original lessee, obstructed the execution of decree for possession. In the meanwhile, some correspondence ensued between the parties. Before eviction, the Petitioners were directed to pay qualified rent with a view to see that their possession could be regularised. Since the Petitioners did not avail of the said offer given by the Respondents, as the Respondents agreed to consider the case of the Petitioners on payment of Rs.28.50 lakhs by them as escape rent i.e. the arrears of rent. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners did not deposit the said amount and went on corresponding and asked the Respondents as to on what basis the said figure was arrived at. Respondent No.1 accordingly thereafter executed the decree and obtained the possession. It is pointed to us that in stead of depositing the entire amount of Rs.28.50 lakhs, the Petitioners deposited part of the amount being Rs.10.75 lakhs. The said amount was deposited on 1/6/89, 1/8/89 and 11/9/89. The aforesaid payment was made by the Petitioners while they were in possession of the premises and obviously they were required to pay the occupancy charges for occupying the premises. On the basis of such payment, the Petitioners tried to assert their right to get benefit of the lease being continued. It is not in dispute that the present Petition is filed by the Petitioners after they were evicted from the premises by executing the decree.