SADASHIV HARI ABHYANKAR Vs. SANJEEV MANOHAR BHAGWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A gory State of affairs this petition reflects, revealing the scandalizing manner in which persons claiming to be tenants without a title of justification for the same can bring the decree-holder-landlord to his wits end by instituting innumerable proceedings, most of them illegitimate. The suit of the landlady was of the year 1965. She got the decree in her favour in 1975. Even before and after that decree, on several occasions, this litigation had reached the precincts of this Court; every-time this Court had negatived the plea or pleas of persons claiming to be in possession as tenants, and still the decree-holder is unable to reap the fruits of the decree in the litigation which started as early as in the year 1965.

(2.) It is necessary to state the facts chronologically. The suit premises are two Flats Nos. 7 and 8 in a building originally belonging to one Radhabai Hari Abhyankar. Both these flats were let out to the husband of one Smt. Gajarabai Damodar Mhaisalkar. It was a common lease for both the flats.

(3.) Now, comes the second round of litigation. The plea which should not have been taken by Suman Bhagwat in the suit filed against her mother Gajarabai, in her capacity as the heir and legal representative of Gajarabai but which she took and which plea was negative by the Court was once again raised by her by filing a Reg. Decl. Suit No. 30 of 1977. In that suit her contention was that she was a lawful sub-tenant of the suit premises which were the subject-matter of the earlier suit filed against her mother and in the alternative that she was a tenant, and that the decree passed against her mother and against herself as the heir and legal representative of her mother was not binding upon her. She also asked for injunction against the execution of the decree. The said suit was dismissed by the Small Causes Court on 5th December, 1978. As could be readily expected, she filed an appeal against the decree of dismissal. In the meantime, the original landlady, Radhabai, died on 24th July, 1979. There is no dispute that her heir, the present petitioner, has been brought on record in the appeal of Suman Bhagwat as also in the relevant execution proceedings. The Appeal filed by Suman Bhagwat was numbered as Appeal No. 128 of 1979. It was dismissed by the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court on 20th August, 1980, exactly 8 years before this date. Writ Petition No. 2767 of 1980 was filed by Suman Bhagwat against the said decree of dismissal; but even the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court (Jahagirdar, J.) on 3rd March, 1982. However, time was granted to Suman Bhagwat till 17th April, 1982, probably with a view to enable her to file a proper suit to establish her claim of tenancy in respect of the suit premises under section 5(11)(c) as it stood after amendment of Rent Act in 1978, by effectively impleading all the necessary parties in that suit. But it is an admitted fact that no such suit was filed by Suman Bhagwat or any of the heirs till this date and a period exceeding 12 years has already passed from the date when the eviction decree was passed by this Court on 5th September, 1975. Against the said order dismissing the writ petition a Special Leave Petition has been filed by Suman Bhagwat. I will mention the nature of the order passed by the Supreme Court in that Special Leave Petition presently. After the judgment of Jahagirdar, J., in Writ Petition No. 2767 of 1980, Sadashiv Hari Abhyankar, who was brought on record as the heir and legal representative of Radhabai, took out a Warrant of Possession against the heirs of deceased Radhabai, including Suman Bhagwat. The application in that behalf was made on 9th August, 1982; but now, when the Bailiff went to execute the decree, the sons of Suman Bhagwat came forth to obstruct the execution of the decree, contending that they were in possession of the suit premises. The Bailiffs Report in that behalf is on record. It states as follows :-