RAJANI RAMCHANDRA SHINDE Vs. MORESHWAR VASANT CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court directing them to vacate the suit premises and also pay an amount of Rs.1000.00 per month as compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises.

(2.) The facts in brief as pleaded by the respondent-plaintiff are that the suit property is a room situated in a chawl. According to the plaintiff his grandmother Anandibai Chavan was the tenant of the same. Said Anandibai Chavan surrendered her rights as tenant in the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff by executing an irrevocable Power of Attorney on 09/09/1993. The plaintiff and his family members were residing in the suit room and were also paying rent to the landlord. The rent receipt was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The grandmother expired on 13/12/1995 after which the plaintiff and other family members continued residing therein. According to the plaintiff the defendants were related to the plaintiff and as they had some difficulty in finding residential accommodation, the plaintiff allowed them to reside in the suit premises for a temporary period. The plaintiff relying upon the assurance given by the defendants that they would vacate the same within a short period, permitted them to occupy the suit premises. The plaintiff thereafter requested the defendants to vacate the suit premises but the defendants refused to do so. They proceeded to file proceedings against the plaintiff without any legal basis. The plaintiff therefore filed suit before the City Civil Court, Mumbai seeking a declaration that the defendants were rank trespassers in the suit property and were liable to vacate the same. It was also prayed that the defendants be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1000.00 per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of possession.

(3.) The defendant No.1 filed her written statement and raised a plea that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of provisions of Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (for short, the said Act). It was further pleaded that the original tenant Anandibai Chavan was the mother of defendant No.1 and that said defendant was residing with her mother during her life time. It was denied that the defendants were permitted to stay in the suit premises for a temporary period as pleaded. It was hence pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed.