RENUKA @ TARINI TARACHAND TAKUMAL Vs. VINAY VINOD KAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant filed Short Cause Suit No. 4589 of 1999 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai so as to seek possession in respect of the suit premises on the ground that the applicant was dispossessed on 10.2.1999 from the said premises by the respondent. The said suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court by judgment and decree dated 8.5.2006 dismissed the suit. Hence this civil revision application is filed. Few facts are required to stated to dispose of this civil revision application.

(2.) At trial the applicant, examined herself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses by name Mr. Bharat P.W.2 and Mr. Jagdish, P.W.3. The respondent gave evidence through his Power of Attorney Mr. Vinod who happens to be father of the respondent. The learned trial Judge after going through the record came to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to make out a case that she was in possession in respect of the suit premises little prior to 10.2.1999 and therefore dismissed the suit. The learned trial Judge has dealt with various documents on which the applicant had relied upon and ultimately answered the question of possession against the present applicant.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Lanke appearing on behalf of the applicant took me through the record and submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge that the applicant has failed to make out a case for possession is not proper. According to the applicant, the applicant has produced number of documents which indicate that Dr. Thakkar was in possession of the suit premises and that the applicant is claiming through said Dr. Thakkar in her capacity as adopted daughter. Learned Advocate Mr. Lanke also relied upon the bank pass-book wherein the applicant wanted to contend that she had an account with Dena Bank, Kandivali (East) and the address mentioned in the bank is Ramkrishna Clinic, Dr. Thakkar Bungalow, Ground Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai. It was also sought to be put up by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the applicant was in possession of the license issued by the Office of the Sanitary Inspector, Cattle Pound Compound, Ramchandra Lane, Extension, Malad (West), Bombay, to hold a dog and that the license mentioned the address of the suit premises, namely Ramkrishna Clinic (without mentioning the room number. It is the contention of the applicant in the plaint that according to the applicant the suit premises is room No. 9, whereas the respondent is referring to the very suit premises as room No. 7. In the course of arguments, it was pointed out by learned Advocate Mr. Lanke that the room No. 9 is situated on the ground floor whereas room No. 7 is situated on the first floor. It has been the stand of the applicant that the applicant is in possession of the premises which are on the ground floor. Be that as it may. On consideration of the entire record, it is abundantly clear that parties know as to in respect of which premises the suit is filed and it is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as regards actual number namely Room No. 9 or Room No. 7.