IGNATIUS LOBO Vs. ANTOINETTE RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Respondent waives service. By consent appeal called out for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE present appeal is filed by the original plaintiff seeking to impugn the order, dated 3rd June, 1992 passed by His Honour Judge Shri A.V. Nirgude (in vacation) of the Bombay City Civil Court refusing ad interim injunction restraining the respondent -defendant who happens to be the wife of the appellant -plaintiff from interfering with his right to enter and continue in occupation of the suit flat. The flat in question which is a rented premises, prior to the marriage stood in the name of the mother of the defendant. After marriage it was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. It continued to be in his name till about 1989. In 1989 by consent of the parties the flat was transferred in the name of the defendant.

(3.) THE plaintiff learnt that the defendant intends to migrate to Canada. She is likely to physically dispossess the plaintiff and induct third parties in the premises. It is in these circumstances that the present suit came to be filed for a perpetual injunction. As already stated a prayer for an ad interim injunction contained in the Notice of Motion was rejected on the ground that it is not probable that after passing of the decree for judicial separation the plaintiff would continue to reside in the suit premises. In the appeal several documents have been relied upon for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff has continued in possession of the suit premises till the date of the suit i.e. the common ration card, electricity bills and the correspondence received by the plaintiff at the suit premises. In my judgment, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim reliefs prayed for in the Notice of Motion.