AZEEM JAGANI Vs. BEHRAM TEJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-original Plaintiff has challenged order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, thereby dismissing the motion pending the Suit, in which the Plaintiff-Appellant prayed for permanent injunction against the Defendants-Respondents from dispossessing the Appellant from the suit premises without following due process of law. A prayer was also made to appoint a Court Commissioner to visit the suit site, apart from a motion for interim protection in view of apprehension so averred in the affidavit supporting the motion.

(2.) The cause of action arose in the matter sometime in the year 2013 when original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 alleged to have threatened the Appellant that they would not allow him to enter into the suit premises. The Appellant therefore lodged a criminal complaint on 3.2.2013 before the Bandra police station. On 4.2.2013, the Plaintiff therefore filed the present Suit. The learned Judge has rejected the motion by holding that the Appellant has not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. It is further observed that no irreparable loss would cause if injunction is refused.

(3.) The Suit is not for any decision on the ownership/and or title of the suit property. The Suit is for protection for the possession as averred supported and based upon various documents ranging from the year 2007 till this date. The threat notice issued by the contesting Defendants-Respondents and the police complaint lodged immediately in February 2013, apart from the Suit in question, itself means that the Defendants were fully aware of the fact that the Appellant- Plaintiff has been residing in the premises since long time with his maternal grandmother Mrs.Noorbanoo Mohammed Ali Tejani. The maternal grandmother is not party to the proceeding, but the case is that she has been occupying the premises since so many years, as they permitted her to occupy even after the death of her husband. The Appellant being grandson, for whatever may be the reason, staying with her at least since 2007, there is no objection whatsoever referred and/or recorded of the grandmother with regard to the actual physical possession of the suit premises of the Appellant and his wife along with the maternal grandmother. Some supporting documents just cannot be overlooked while considering the possession of the Appellant. Those documents are viz. ration card (30.1.2008), bank account with Corporation Bank, Bandra (opened on 22.10.2008), motor driving licence (issued on 1.3.2007) showing the address of the flat as permanent address. The identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, passport and many other documents supporting the said address as address of the Appellant.