DHANARAJI BABURAM YADAV Vs. RAMAKANT K DHANAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are taking exception to the judgments and orders passed by Small Causes Court in Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 and consequential appeal decided by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court bearing Appeal No. 18 of 1988 in Obstructionist Notice No. 67 of 1983.

(2.) THE facts of the matter heed to be stated for understanding the controversy in better way. The Ejectment Application No. 715 of 1972 was filed under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act (for convenience referred to as the Act ). It was treated to be a summary proceeding. When the decree was put to execution by decree holder, Kondiram Dhanawade, father of original defendant Ramakant Kondiram Dhanawade obstructed the execution proceedings by contending that he was residing in the said tenement as licensee since 1972 though the suit was filed in the year 1972 and he was not participating in it as co-defendant. It is necessary to mention here that the said tenement was declared to be the slum area in view of Government Notification No. SLM/imp/ca/i/3 on 30-8-1977 and it was published in Maharashtra Gazette part I dated 15-9-1977 at page 1626. It is also necessary to mention that the obstructionist was indeed in possession of the property at the time of inspection done by the Deputy Collector, Kurla I. The original decree holder Kondiram Dhanawade was not having any concern whatsoever with the suit tenement according to the contention of obstructionist Ramakant Dhanawade because the present petitioners have themselves created leave and licence in favour of the obstructionist in the month of November 1972 and on 1-11-1972 he was put in possession of the premises by the petitioners themselves and since then he was having the exclusive possession of the suit premises under the name and style of "dhanawade Brothers". It is also necessary to. mention here that it was the contention of the obstructionist that though the present petitioners were aware of this fact even then they filed the ejectment proceedings against one of them only. The obstructionist had also contended that the said licence continued and was subsisting on 1-2-1973 and, therefore, the obstructionist was "deemed tenant" in respect of the suit premises. He claimed the protection in view of provisions of Section 15-A of the amended Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) THE present petitioners denied the averment made by obstructionist in respect of the said licence and their status as deemed tenant. They denied the averment of the obstructionist in respect of the said alleged agreement.