LAWS(BOM)-2024-7-65

MOMIN ZULFIKAR KASAM Vs. AJAY BALKRISHNA DURVE

Decided On July 09, 2024
Momin Zulfikar Kasam Appellant
V/S
Ajay Balkrishna Durve Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties, petition is taken up final hearing and disposal.

(2.) This petition is filed challenging Order dtd. 6/5/2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai allowing the Revision Application filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dtd. 23/4/2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The Appellate Bench has directed the Executing Court to decide the objection of Respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor about assignment and about maintainability of the execution proceedings filed by the transferee (Petitioner) under Order XXI Rule 16 or Sec. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code).

(3.) A quick reference leading to filing of the present petition would be necessary. Flat No. E/4 on ground floor of the building 'Hoechst Marion Roussel Staff Quarters' situated at Dargah Road, Opp. Amar Nagar, Mulund Colony, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 082 are the suit premises. Respondent No.1 was in employment of the Company, M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd.' (Plaintiff) and the suit premises were let out by Plaintiff to Respondent No.1 under an agreement of license. In the year 1999, the operations of Respondent No.2 were apparently shut and voluntary retirement was offered to all the employees.The First Respondent opted for voluntary retirement scheme on 5/2/1999 and retired from service. He however failed to vacate the suit premises. On 19/5/1999, Plaintiff issued notice calling upon Respondent No.1 to vacate the suit premises. Since Respondent No.1 failed to do so, Plaintiff filed Application No. 59 of 2000 before the Competent Authority under Sec. 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the First Respondent. An objection was raised about jurisdiction of the Competent Authority. Application No.59 of 2000 was dismissed on 11/1/2005 on the ground that the Competent Authority did not have jurisdiction to decide the same.