VIRENDRA DHIRUBHAI SHAH Vs. NATWAR PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ihe Civil Revision Application has been prelerred against the judgment and order of the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 414 of 2003. By this order, the Small Causes Court has decreed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the defendants before the court were in default of payment of rent and also on the ground that the applicant herein was in unlawful occupation of the suit premises being a flat in Parekh building in Sion, Mumbai.

(2.) The respondent landlord filed a Suit bearing RAE Suit No. 923/2487 of 1991 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai against one Madhuben Pravinchandra Shah i.e. Defendant No. 1 and the father of the Applicants i.e. Defendant No. 2. Madhuben was the sister-in-law of Defendant No. 2. It appears that the suit premises had initially been let out to Madhuben by the landlord. In 1965, she inducted Dhirubhai i.e. Defendant No. 2 into the suit premises. It appears that Madhuben later left for Secunderabad since her husband had set up a business in that place. Thus, from 1965 she was not staying in the suit premises. The rent was being paid by Dhirubhai to the landlord directly. However, the rent receipts were issued in the name of Madhuben.

(3.) Madhuben had filed a suit against Dhirubhai in the City Civil Court, being Short Causes Suit No. 9824 of 1988. This suit was filed for an injunction to restrain Dhirubhai from disturbing her lawful possession of the suit premises. It appears that Dhirubhai then filed his written statement and a counter-claim in which it was contended that he had been residing in the premises since 1965 with his immediate family and that therefore he was entitled to exclusive possession of the suit premises. He therefore prayed for an injunction against Madhuben, permanently restraining her from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit premises. This suit was compromised and consent terms were recorded before the City Civil Court. These consent terms were submitted in Court on 10-10-2001. Under these terms, Madhuben agreed that she had not paid any rent to the landlord in respect of the suit premises since 1965 and it was the defendants in that suit who were bound and liable to pay the same. She also acknowledged that the defendants had paid rent to the landlord by issuing cheques. The plaintiff Madhuben, therefore, abandoned her right to the said property and agreed that it would be in the sole and exclusive possession of the defendants i.e. the applicants herein.