SONIBAI HARI BHAWAR Vs. SONABAI JAYWANT AHIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has filed the present Revision Application challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 127 of 2012, by which the Appeal has been allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 30/8/2012 passed by Small Causes Court in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 688/1161 of 2000. The Appellate Court has decreed the Suit on the ground of illegal subletting and default in payment of rent and has directed the Applicant/Defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

(2.) The original Plaintiff-Smt. Sonabai Jaywant Ahire claimed ownership in respect of the property known as 'Sonabai Jaywant Ahire Chawl' situated at Ward-N, 8093, 20 Kirol Village, Vidyavihar (West), Mumbai-400 086. Defendant No.1 was inducted as monthly tenant in respect of Room No.2 in the said property on monthly rent of Rs.50.00. This is how Room No.2 in Sonabai Jaywant Ahire Chawl became the 'suit premises' in the suit instituted by the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 had illegally sublet to Defendant No.2 the suit premises. Plaintiff also alleged default in payment of rent from January 1989. Plaintiff accordingly instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 688/1161 of 2000 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and unlawful subletting. Defendant No.1. appeared in the suit and filed her written statement questioning the title of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. She contended that one Mukund Valku Rokade was the owner of the suit property. That Defendant No.1 along with her husband and children were staying in the suit premises for 40 long years and were paying Municipal Assessment and looking after the house as its owner. That after the death of Mukund Walku Rokade, his wife-Laxmibai executed documents dtd. 28/7/1987 renouncing her rights in respect of the Chawl and after her death on 9/4/1988, Defendant No.1 has been enjoying the suit premises as the owner. That Laxmibai was the cousin sister of Defendant No.1. Defendants thus questioned the capacity of the Plaintiff as the landlady in respect of the suit premises. Based on pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues relating to Plaintiff's status as 'landlady', default in payment of rent, unlawful subletting and disclaimer of title of Plaintiff by Defendant No.1. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by holding that Plaintiff has failed to prove her title in respect of the suit premises and that existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 was not proved.

(3.) Plaintiff filed Appeal No. 127 of 2012 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. However, since Defendants did not appear before the Appellate Court, the Appeal proceeded ex-parte. By judgment and order dtd. 3/8/2017, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the decree of the Trial Court and partly decreed the suit by upholding the status of Plaintiff as landlady in respect of the suit premises. Defendants were directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.