RAMESH BALKISHAN BHURA Vs. SATYANARAYAN SAGARMAL MODY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the judgment and decree dtd. 15/1/2024 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 336 of 2015 and confirming eviction decree dtd. 13/4/2015 passed by the Small Causes Court decreeing R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 468/696 of 2009.

(2.) Facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that Plaintiff no.1 is karta and manager of Satyanarayan Sagarmal Mody HUF and Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are co-parceners and members of the said HUF. Plaintiffs claim to be the owners and landlords of the building known as 'Sagar Sadan' situated at Plot No. 30, Dadar Matunga Estate, K.A. Subramaniam Road, Matunga, Mumbai. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were inducted as joint tenants in respect of Flat No. 4 in the building Sagar Sadan at monthly rent of Rs.260.00, which are the suit premises. Defendant No. 2 passed away on 10/6/2001 and Defendant Nos. 2(i) to (viii) are the legal heirs of Defendant No. 2. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 3-M/s. Shree Narayan Paper and Boards Private Limited (Company) was unauthorizedly occupying the suit premises on account of subletting by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiffs further alleged that the suit premises were let out for residential purposes and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 unauthorizedly changed the user to that of commercial and transferred their rights in favour of Defendant No. 3-Company, who was operating its registered office in the suit premises and carrying on business therein. It was further alleged that the Defendants made several additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises without landlord's consent. Plaintiffs accordingly terminated the tenancy by their Advocate's letters dtd. 9/6/2007 and 1/9/2008. Defendant No. 1 sent replies dtd. 27/6/2007 and 2/12/2008 denying the contents of the notices. In the above background, Plaintiffs instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 468/696 of 2009 against Defendants seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of commission of acts contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (o) and (p) of Sec. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) as well as Sec. 15(1) and 16(1)(a),(b),(e) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act). All the Defendants filed joint Written Statement contesting the claim of Plaintiffs. Based on pleadings the Small Causes Court framed various issues relating to unlawful subletting, unauthorized additions and alterations, commission of acts contrary to provisions of Sec. 108 (m), (o) and (p) of the TP Act as well as non-user. Plaintiffs led evidence by examining Chandrakant Satyanarayan Mody, Plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiffs also examined Mr. Ramkishan Kejriwala, Architect and Consulting Engineer as PW2. They also examined Mr. Jayesh Tilak Patel, Photographer as PW3. Defendants examined Mr. Ramesh Balkishan Bhura as DW1, Bhagwan Balkishan Bhura as DW2. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit by judgment and order dtd. 13/4/2015 by accepting the ground of unlawful subletting, commission of acts contrary to the provisions of sec. 108 (m), (o) and (p) of TP Act and non-user. The ground of erecting permanent structure without consent of the landlord was however rejected. Defendants were accordingly directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to Plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendants filed Appeal No. 336 of 2015 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decree dtd. 13/4/2015. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has however proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by judgment and order dtd. 15/1/2024, which is subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application.