VASANT GOVINDJI KOTAK Vs. DAMAYANTI HARIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Being all fashioned of the self same dust, Let us be merciful as well as just". H. W. Long fellow. This is the rule of life and this is the rule of Law. Justice tempered with mercy. That is what Judge Chaudhary did. Strange, the Trustees of a charitable trust, the petitioners, find fault in this.

(2.) The petitioners filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court being Suit No. 617 of 1985 as against the defendants for a declaration that they are trespassers and for possession and for the mesne profits etc. The plaintiffs are the trustees of a charitable Trust which owns a chawl the rooms in which are to be used by the poor men and woman of Lohana caste, at the monthly subscription of Re. 1/-. One Kamlaben was occupying room No. 26, the suit premises, in the said chawl. She died on November 9, 1984. It is the plaintiffs case that Kamlaben was staying alone in the said premises and, therefore, on her death the plaintiffs thought that they could put a lock on the said premises. As against this, it is the case of the defendants that they were residing in the said room at the time of the death of the said Kamlaben. Defendant No. 1 has her husband staying in room No. 28 of the same chawl. But she says that her relations with her husband have been strained since about 1976 and, therefore, she could not stay with her husband. She went to her native place, Morvi, in Gujarat State, where she was residing with her parents till about 1980. She came to Bombay with her mother, defendant No. 2, and since then she has been residing in the said room.

(3.) It is the case of the defendants that on November 9, 1984 after the funeral they had gone to the ground floor to have bath and by the time they came up they found that there was a lock on the door of the suit premises. They requested plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 to have the lock removed. They went to the Police Station but none could help them. Therefore, they were advised to remove the lock on December 12, 1984. When they occupied the said room, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants broke open the lock of the premises and that is how the suit was filed some time in 1985 on the basis that the defendants are trespassers. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs took out a notice of motion for appointment of Court Receiver as Receiver of the said room. The learned Judge appointed Court Receiver as the Receiver. However, the learned Judge gave direction that the defendants be not removed from the premises and be allowed to continue as the agents of the Court Receiver. It is not necessary for me to go into various other details. However, it is on record that eventually the defendants entered into an agreement with the Court Receiver and the defendants were directed to pay monthly royalty of Rs. 100/-.