YAMUNABAI LAXMAN GAIKWAD Vs. V.M. VANMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by Obstructionist against whom Obstructionist Notice No. 202 of 1976 taken out by the Respondent-Decree Holder was made absolute by the Trial Court and it was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court.

(2.) FEW facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the respondent-landlord had filed suit against the original Defendant-Respondent No. 2 herein for possession on the ground of subletting and profiteering. An ex parte decree was passed on 12th February, 1976. When the respondent-landlord sought to execute this decree, obstruction was raised by the present petitioners and they claimed that they are in exclusive occupation of one room tenement since 1968 and thus they are protected licensee and notwithstanding the fact that they had taken out an application for joining them as party in earlier suit, that application was rejected. It appears, after the obstruction report was submitted by bailiff that petitioners are residing along with the Original Defendant No. 1.

(3.) THE present petitioners filed detailed reply which they tried to contend that they are in exclusive possession since 1968 and they were paying compensation to original defendant who happened to be their relation and they were paying compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and since they happen to be in possession since 1968 they are protected licensees and hence decree should not be permitted to be executed against them. They also brought to the notice of the Court that earlier before passing of decree on 24th March, 1975, an application was filed for joining them as party defendant but that application was objected to by the decree holder and the application was rejected.