SHOBANA MOHAMMED HANIF SORATHIA Vs. SIDDHIQUE MOHAMMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased respondent No. 1 was the original applicant and was landlord of the suit premises. The present respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had filed Case No. 35 of 1991 before the Competent Authority (Rent Act)against the present respondent No. 2 Mohammed Hanif is under section 13-A (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates (Control) Act (Hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act" ). It was his contention that the respondent No. 2 was inducted in the suit premises as licensee for the period beginning from 1-4-1990 and ending with 28-2-1991. He was to pay an amount of Rs. 100/- as a compensation for occupation of the premises. Notice was issued to him on 23rd February, 1991 to vacate the premises on the end of license period. However, respondent No. 2 sought some more time and time was. extended till the end of April, 1991. However, he did not vacate the premises and, therefore, on the basis of written deed of licence, the landlord filed case for eviction. After service of summons, the respondent No. 2 Mohammed Hanif appeared and filed written statement after obtaining leave to contest the application. However, thereafter he did not appear on number of dates and the matter proceeded ex parte against him. In view of the fact that there was agreement in writing about the leave and licence dated 1-4-1990 and the terms of the leave and licence were recorded in that agreement, the competent authority passed the order dated 19-10-1994 for eviction of the respondent No. 2 under section 13-A (2) of the Bombay Rent act. That order had become final because no appeal or revision was preferred against that order. Thereafter, the landlord filed Execution application No. 3 of 1994 for execution of that order and for getting the possession.

(2.) THE present revision applicant, who is the wife of the respondent No. 2, appeared and contended that in fact, she herself was a tenant in the suit premises and she has documents like rent receipts in support of her claim. She also stated that she had filed regular Civil Suit No. 763 of 1991 in the small Causes Court at Bandra for declaration that she was tenant in the suit premises. However, that suit was dismissed in default as her husband had not attended the suit on the dates of hearing of the matter. She claimed that she had come to know about this proceeding for eviction only when the notice of the execution application was served. She applied for being impleaded as the respondent No. 2 in the execution proceeding. However, her application for being impleaded came to be rejected by the order dated 22-12-1994 by the Competent Authority on the ground that she had no right in the suit property and she had no concern with the execution proceedings, which were between the landlord and her husband. Thereafter, during the execution proceeding, she raised objection to the execution proceeding and her statement was recorded. However, that objection application also came to be rejected on the ground that she had no right in the suit property nor she is concerned with the execution proceedings, which were between the landlord and her husband. That order dated 7-3-1996 is challenged in the present Revision Application.

(3.) BY this Revision Application, the applicant not only challenges the order passed by the Competent Authority on 7-3-1996 rejecting her objection to the execution of the decree but she also challenges the decree, which was passed by the Competent Authority in favour of her husband in Case No. 35 of 1991 on 19-10-1994. According to her, she being the tenant, the order for eviction could not have been passed against her husband and she should have been given an opportunity to prove that she is a tenant. According to her, she is having sufficient documents in her possession to prove that she is the tenant and the application under section 13-A (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, which provides for summary proceeding for eviction in case of licence for residence only is not tenable. She also contended that the suit premises are declared to be slum area and, therefore, suit/application itself could not have been filed without obtaining necessary permission under section 22 of the maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as 'slum Act" ). Similarly, the decree also can not be executed for want of necessary permission under section 22 of the Slum Act.