BOMBAY ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION Vs. PRABHAKAR MUDURA PUTHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Application, the judgment and order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the learned judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C. Suit No.3038 of 2012 is challenged. The applicant is an association of the advocates of Bombay especially working in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, having head office at Small Causes Court, second floor, L.T. Marg, Mumbai. The respondent is the original plaintiff, who has filed H.C. Suit No.795 of 2012 u/s. 6 of the Specific Relief Act that he was forcibly dispossessed by the members of the defendant-association on 30.9.2011 and, therefore, prayed that the possession of the said suit premises i.e., canteen, situated on 3 rd floor of the Annex building, Small Causes Court, L.T. Marg, Mumbai, is to be handed over him. The suit was decreed by order dated 31.8.2015 by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai directing defendant Nos.1 to 5 to deliver the possession of the suit premises i.e., the canteen, in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the passing of the judgment and decree. The said order was challenged by filing this Civil Revision Application on 13.10.2015.

(2.) The admitted facts are summarised as follows:

(3.) As per the case of the plaintiff, on 30.9.2001, he put his lock and left the premises and thereafter putting lock on that lock, the applicant - Association took forcible possession of the suit premises wherein all the gazettes belonging to him like gas, mixer, refrigerator, utensils and other goods purchased by him and owned by him were lying. Against the possession, the original plaintiff filed S.C. Suit No.3038 of 2012 (HC Suit No.795 of 2012) u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of the suit premises i.e., the 3rd floor canteen. The Bar Association i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 5, filed a written statement and submitted that the lawful owners of the premises is the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra and the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court are the lawful owners and possession of the suit premises. It was contended that the juristic possession of the premises is with the Office of the Court Keeper of the Small Causes Court. The applicant Association has admitted that the plaintiff was allowed to use the suit premises for the purpose of running canteen facility, however, all allegations of forcible dispossession are strongly denied by the Bar Association. The learned Judge framed the issues after considering the pleadings and contentions and after recording evidence, decreed the suit. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, by his judgment and order dated 31.8.2015 directed that defendant Nos.1 to 5 shall deliver possession of the suit premises i.e., the canteen, 3 rd floor, in the annexe building of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment.