KAUSAR BUDDAN KHAN Vs. VICTORIA TIMBER SUPPLYING CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has 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 order dated December 16, 2020 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Short Cause Suit No.2094 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been allowed and the Defendants are directed to restore possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. The Applicant, who is Defendant No.2 in the Suit, is aggrieved by the impugned decree for restoration of possession and has accordingly filed the present Revision Application.

(2.) The premises situated at 116, Reay Road, 2nd Ghorupdeo Cross Lane bearing Survey No.11/671 and 12/671 of Mazgaon Division admeasuring 27'5'' x 23' 5" having height of 10'6" are the 'suit premises'. M/s. Kothari Saw Mill was the original landlord of structure wherein the suit premises are situated. M/s. Kothari Saw Mill was a Lessee of the land belonging to Bombay Port Trust (BPT) and had erected various structures on the land. According to the Plaintiff, in 1966 M/s. Kothari Saw Mill inducted it into the suit property. Plaintiff claims to have paid rent in respect of the suit premises. Defendant No.1 claims that the lease in respect of the land was transferred in the name of Defendant No.1 in the year 1970 on account of inability of Kothari Saw Mills to pay lease rent to the BPT. Plaintiff claims ignorance of these developments and contends that his status as protected tenant remained unaffected even after alleged transfer of lease in favour of Defendant No.1. According to the Plaintiff on March 9, 1971 there was a fire, causing damage to Plaintiff's goods and the suit property were also partly damaged. The Plaintiff seeks to blame Defendant No.1 for such fire. Defendant No.1 filed Suit No.3893 of 1971 against the Plaintiff inter-alia for injunction. Thereafter Defendant No.1 filed S.C.Suit No.6405 of 1975 on the ground that the Plaintiff had no right to use or occupy the suit premises. Consent terms were filed in S.C. Suit No.6405 of 1975 under which the Plaintiff was directed to deposit amount of Rs.200.00 per month for use of the premises during pendency of the Suit. The Suit was dismissed on October 7, 1985. Defendant No.1 filed First Appeal No.266 of 1987 in this Court challenging the decree dismissing the Special Civil Suit No.6405 of 1975. The First Appeal was dismissed on September 11, 2009.

(3.) It is Plaintiff's pleaded case that on January 28, 2012 the Defendant No.1 attempted to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit property, which led to lodging of complaint with the police. Plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No.317 of 2012 in the City Civil Court, in which the officer of the Court was appointed as Court Commissioner to visit the suit property. However, before the Court Commissioner could visit the site, on February 7, 2012 Defendant No.1, in collusion and connivance with Defendant No.2, changed Plaintiff's lock and put their own lock on the suit premises. According to the Plaintiff, this is how Defendants took forcible possession of the suit premises. Plaintiff has pleaded that Defendant No.1 has represented to it that Defendant No.2 is given oral permission to use and occupy the premises. Defendant No.2 thereafter took out Chamber Summons for being joined as party Defendant in Short Cause Suit No.317 of 2012 filed by the Plaintiff.