SOMPRAKASH DAGDUAPPA KALAYANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.R. Karpe for the petitioners.

(2.) By way of an interim relief, learned Counsel for the petitioners is seeking stay to the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned notices dtd. 27/5/2022 issued by respondent No. 3 during the pendency of this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners made a statement that under the aforesaid notices dtd. 27/5/2022, respondent No. 3 i.e. the Chief Offcer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur is seeking eviction of the petitioners from their respective tenements. However, he further states that the Civil Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedpur has already protected all the petitioners in their respective civil suits thereby granting perpetual injunction against the present respondent No. 3 for not to evict them from their respective tenements without following due process of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respective suits of all these petitioners were in fact fled since the similar notices as that of the present impugned notice, were issued to the petitioners for vacating their tenements. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the order of perpetual injunction, respondent No.3 has again issued similar notices to all the petitioners for vacating their respective premises within 7 days from the notice dtd. 27/5/2022.

(3.) On going through the documents placed by the petitioners on record, such as, copies of certain judgments in the respective civil suits fled by some of the petitioners, it appears that the learned Civil Judge has observed that it was in dispute that the present petitioners were lessees of their respective tenements and respondent No. 3 was the lessor. Further, the said relationship was also found to be not in dispute. It appears that the petitioners are paying taxes regularly to respondent No. 3 and some of the receipts to that effect are also on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that for the sake of eviction, respondent No. 3 has stopped to accept the payment of taxes from the petitioners with malafde intention. Under such circumstances, when possession of the present petitioners appears to be protected by the competent Civil Court and respondent No.3 is prohibited from taking possession of the respective tenements of the petitioners without following due process of law, I am of the opinion that prima facie case is made out by the petitioners to secure ad-interim relief as claimed by their learned Counsel.