MOTILAL HASTIMAL BOTHARA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1999.

(2.) THE appellant has approached this Court complaining that extra ordinary procedure has been followed in dispossessing the appellant from the premises which were lawfully occupied by him as tenant being Room No. 10, admeasuring 140 sq. ft. at Sudama Bhavan, 4th floor, 1st Panjarpole lane, Mumbai 400 004. The Designated Court by order dated October 23, 2002 directed the Investigating Officer to seal and seize the said room and report compliance on 25-10-2002. Incidentally, before passing such drastic order, the appellant was not heard nor put to notice that the Court proposes to pass such an order against him. That order was passed by the Designated Court presumably on some representation made by the depositors that a trespasser was living in the said room with his family, which was the property possessed by the accused No. 2. On the basis of the said order, the Investigating Officer visited the said premises on 24-10-2002, but did not precipitate the matter as the appellant requested to defer the action as he intended to move the trial Court for appropriate orders. Accordingly, the appellant who was staying alongwith his wife in the said premises, filed application before the Designated Court being Misc. Application No. 597/2002 for vacating the seal and seizure order. However, that application has been rejected by the Designated Court on the reasoning that the documents on which the appellant has placed reliance are not genuine and the transaction in his favour was mala fide one and hit by section 8 of the Act. The Designated Court obviously proceeded on the premise that the accused No. 2 had surrendered the tenancy in respect of the said premises in January 2002, as can be discerned from the reasons of the paper book of the impugned judgment. The basis on which the Designated Court has proceeded is completely falsified by the record produce by the appellant which were also placed before the Designated Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the appellant was that the appellant came to Bombay some time in the year 1989 and started residing with his father Hastimal Bothara at 28/30 Jaya Building 1st floor, Room No. 17, 2nd Carpenter Street, Mumbai 400 004 in the same locality where the said premises, are situated. It is relevant to note that, the said premises were admeasuring only about 250 sq. ft. The appellant got married in 1994 and after his marriage, he started staying separately alongwith his wife in premises being room No. 120, 3rd floor, 177/f, Old Amritwadi, V. P. Road, Sikka Nagar, Mumbai which is also in the same locality. This premises were admeasuring around 170 sq. ft. and was taken on rental basis. The landlord in respect of the said premises however, called upon the appellant to hand over the possession of the premises on account of the fact that the same would be required to accommodate his relative who was to shortly shift to Bombay. This happened sometime in December, 1999. In view of the said demand made by the landlord, the appellant started looking for some other premises and in the process came in contact with Mrs. Madhu Sharma who is undisputedly landlady in respect of the premises in question. The landlady in turn informed the appellant that the person who was occupying the said premises was about to vacate the premises and surrender the premises very shortly. That person is none other than accused No. 2. Further, it is stated that the said person eventually vacated the premises and surrendered the tenancy in January, 2000; and as the premises became vacant and available for letting out, Mrs. Madhu Sharma landlady inducted the appellant as tenant in the said premises on monthly rent basis. The present premises, as mentioned earlier, is admeasuring only 140 sq. ft. The appellant accordingly, took the said premises on rental basis in January 2000 and started staying in the said premises alongwith his wife since then. It is the appellants case that a formal agreement was executed between the appellant and the landlady on 15-1-2000 which has been placed on record. As the appellant started staying in the said premises, he naturally applied for telephone connection in January 2000 itself, as can be discerned from the copy of the telephone bill placed on record. Besides the telephone connection, the appellant also applied for separate electric meter in January 2000 itself and which was granted by the Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Corporation undertaking, as can be discerned from the receipt. The appellant paid the necessary amount towards the deposit for supply of electricity, which receipt is also placed on record. Besides, the appellant took steps to delete his name from the ration card on the previous address and issuance of fresh ration card on the address of the suit premises. Even this was done in or about January 2000 as can be discerned from the documents placed on record. Besides, the appellant also filed his income tax returns under the Saral scheme in November, 2001 indicating the address of the suit premises as the place of his residence. That document is placed on record. All these documents have been placed on record only to show that the appellant was bona fide tenant of the suit premises and was occupying the same since January 2000, much prior to the period when the criminal case against the accused No. 2 came to be instituted in the year 2002 being C. R. No. 86/2002.