SULOCHANA DIVAKAR PARKAR Vs. SHAMRAO DINANATH BHATTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under provisions of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the decree dtd. 13/11/2021 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No.35 of 2013, by which the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and has set aside the decree of the Small Causes Court dtd. 31/1/2013 passed in RAE and R Suit No.613/1164 of 1998. The Appellate Court has decreed the suit directing the Applicant/Defendant to vacate the possession of the suit premises. The Revision Applicant/Defendant is aggrieved by the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court and has accordingly filed the present Revision Application.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that Shop No.13 situated on Plot No.177, TPS-IV, Mahim Division, Mumbai, admeasuring 38.21 square feet carpet area located in Miranda Chawl were the original suit premises. It appears that original Plaintitiff Shamrao Dinananth Bhatte was the tenant in respect of the said Shop No.13 in Miranda Chawl. It appears that Defendant was inducted in the suit premises by Plaintitiff Shamrao Dinanath Bhatte for conducting the business of cycle repairing in the year 1962. Defendant filed a declaratory suit in Small Causes Court, Mumbai seeking a declaration that she is the tenant in respect of the suit premises on the basis of her possession as on the cut of date of 1/2/1973. By decree dtd. 2/4/1980, the Small Causes Court declared Defendant as deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises. It appears that during pendency of the said suit, Miranda Chawl was demolished by Shri Shiv Sena Trust, which proposed construction of the new building at site. The Small Causes Court therefore directed the Trust to handover possession of alternate premises in the newly constructed building to the Defendant. Appeal preferred by the Plaintitiff against declaratory decree dtd. 2/4/1980 was dismissed by the Appellate Bench on 13/8/1981. Writ Petition preferred by Plaintitiff before this Court was also dismissed on 26/2/1997. It appears that in the newly constructed building, Shop No.2 was given in possession of the Defendant.

(3.) In the above background, Plaintitiff instituted RAE and R Suit No.613/1164 of 1988 for eviction of Defendant on the grounds of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent. During pendency of RAE and R Suit No.613/1164 of 1988, the reconstructed building by Shri Shiv Sena Trust was again required to be demolished on 4/3/2004 and new building has been constructed at the site in which suit premises are allotted and put in possession of the Defendant.