CHANDRABHUSHAN RAMSHINGAR TIWARI Vs. HARINARAYAN RAMKARAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant /original Defendant No.1, through his legal heirs, has filed the present Revision Application taking exception to judgment and order dtd. 2/5/2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, dismissing A-1 Appeal No.38 of 2013 and confirming the eviction decree dtd. 9/5/2013 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 2510 of 1990. The only modification effected by the Appellate Court is to direct both the Defendants to deliver possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff as the Trial Court had ordered only Defendant No.1 to deliver possession of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the concurrent decrees passed by the Trial and the Appellate Courts, original Defendant No.1 has filed the present Revision Application through his legal heirs.

(2.) Plaintiff claimed ownership in respect of the structure known as 'Ramajor Jagannath Yadav Chawl' situated at Ambewadi, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), Bombay-400 099. According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of Room No.22 in the said chawl (suit premises) at monthly rent of Rs.23.98. Original Plaintiff served notice dtd. 16/6/1990 to Defendant No.1 demanding arrears of rent from February-1987 to May-1990. Original Plaintiff instituted R.A.E. Suit No.2510 of 1990 in small Causes Court, at Mumbai on 28/8/1990 seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by Defendant No.1/tenant, unlawful subletting in favour of Defendant No.2 and erecting permanent structure without landlord's consent. The suit was resisted by Defendant No. 1/Revision Applicant by filing written statement and additional written statement. Defendant No.2 did not appear in the suit despite service of suit summons and suit proceeded ex-parte against Defendant No.2. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties, the Trial Court framed issues relating to the grounds of default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation, unlawful subletting and erection of permanent structure. At the instance of Defendant No.1, issue of suit premises being declared as slum under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) was also framed. The Trial Court also framed the issue of jurisdiction to decide the Suit. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective claims and also produced several documents. Defendant No.1 filed a pursis at Exhibit-91 and did not press the issue of suit premises being declared as slum. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the Suit by answering the issue of erecting permanent structure in the suit premises without landlord's consent in favour of the Plaintiff. The ground of default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation and unlawful subletting were rejected by the Trial Court. Defendant No.1 sought to create dispute about Plaintiff's ownership in respect of the suit premises and contended that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is the real owner of the land on which the suit premises are situated and accordingly questioned the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to try and entertain the Suit. The said issue was answered against Defendant holding that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to decide the Suit. The Trial Court accordingly directed Defendant No.1 to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff and conduct of enquiry into future mesne profits against Defendant No.1 from the date of the Suit till delivery of possession under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code).

(3.) Applicant /Defendant No.1 filed Appeal No.38 of 2013 before the Appellate Court of Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decreed dtd. 9/5/2013. The Appellate Court has however, proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by slightly modifying the decree by directing both the Defendants to vacate the possession of the suit premises and also ordering mesne profit enquiry against both the Defendants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 2/5/2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, the Revision Applicant /Defendant No.1 has filed the present Revision Application.