HEENA PARVEZ KHOKAR Vs. KHURSHID MOHAMMED NAZIR KHOKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal impugns an order dtd. 30/6/2023, by which, the Appellants' Interim Application in the captioned Suit came to be dismissed.

(2.) The primary grievance of Mr. Manwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants is that the Impugned Order is a short and cryptic order and does not consider the various contentions raised by the Appellants in support of the Interim Application. Mr. Manwani points out that the Appellants are the owners of the suit flat being Flat No.4, Building No. C 2, Sneh CHS Ltd, Khira Nagar, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054. It is his contention that the said flat has been gifted to the Appellants by their father one Mehboob. It is the Appellants' contention that they had permitted the Respondents, who are the aunt and uncle of the Appellants, to jointly reside in the suit flat as per the request of the Respondents. However, post March, 2022, the Respondents prevented the Appellants from entering upon the suit flat after the father of the Appellants had traveled overseas for treatment in respect of a rare heart condition, from which he suffers from.

(3.) Mr. Manwani pointed out that the Respondents had not even filed a written statement till date in the said Suit and further pointed out that the Respondents had premised their entire case to oppose the Interim Application on patently false, inconsistent and untenable grounds. Amongst the false contentions taken by the Respondents, he pointed out that the Respondents had contended that they were residing in the suit flat since the year 1999, whereas, he pointed out from the record that the suit flat had in fact been rented out by the Appellants to various entities from the year 1997 to 2005. He further pointed out that all the necessary maintenance and property taxes, including parking charges etc. in respect of the suit flat were being borne by the Appellants at all times even till date. He submitted that the Respondents did not have a semblance of right much less title to the suit flat and that the Appellants' occupation and use of the same was patently illegal. He submitted that it was thus that the Appellants had in the Interim Application sought for the following reliefs since they were at all time jointly residing with the Respondents in the suit flat;