LAWS(BOM)-1985-7-66

SUNDERABAI SOPAN LOKHANDE Vs. RAMPIARIBAI SURAJPRASAD AND OTHERS

Decided On July 19, 1985
Sunderabai Sopan Lokhande Appellant
V/S
Rampiaribai Surajprasad And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is the landlady of certain premises at Kurla, Bombay-400 070. R.A.E. Suit No. 4247 of 1960 was filed by her against the tenant in whose name the rent receipt of Room No. 1 of Suraj Prasad Chawla situated at 204, C.S.T. Road, Kurla, Bombay-400 070 stood. The landlady obtained a decree. It is this decree which the mother of the said tenant sought to impugn in Declaratory Rent Act Suit No. 3813 of 1964. The necessary declaration sought for by the mother was given by the trial Court and the landlady was restrained from executing the decree. Aggrieved by the said order the landlady filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes and SETTING aside the decree of the trial Court the suit was dismissed. Time up to December 1980 was given by the Appellate Bench.

(2.) Thereafter the present petition was filed. It came up for hearing in April, 1985. At that stage the Advocate on record for the petitioner had for personal reasons chosen to remain out of Bombay. The matter was subsequently restored and is being heard by me to-day.

(3.) I find no substance in the petition. The proper legal question has been posed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes and has been correctly answered. At the date when the original suit was filed by the landlady the petitioner's son was not a minor and it makes no difference that when the tenancy was taken in his name he was only 11 years old. It may be pointed out that even earlier, in 1957, a suit was filed by the landlady against the tenant which has resulted in a compromise. Even at the time of this suit the son was a major. In my opinion, the story that the mother remained the real tenant cannot be accepted at least after the decision of the first suit. In any case, the landlady has accepted the son as the tenant and could have sued the son only. No fraud has been averred by the petitioner and mere assumed lack of knowledge cannot help the petitioner.