VEENA PRAFULCHANDRA DALAL Vs. JITENDRA PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) BY this motion, the plaintiff prays that the Court Receiver be appointed as a receiver of the suit premises. The motion is opposed by the defendant no.1A who has been brought on record as an intermeddler after the death of defendant no.1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant no.1A submitted that the suit flat was never allotted to the heirs of Kantilal on ownership basis, but they were only the tenants in respect of the suit flat and on Ashwin's death, Pallavi being his widow inherited the tenancy. He further submitted that after the death of Ashwin, the defendant no.1A started residing with Pallavi in the suit flat as she was ill. At the time of death of Pallavi, the defendant no.1A was living in the suit flat as a member of her family and therefore he inherited the tenancy. This, of course, is denied by the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant no.1A therefore submitted that whether the defendant no.1A has inherited the tenancy of the suit flat is the main point in issue. That matter can be decided only by a rent court which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide that issue under section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to decide that issue and the present suit. Subsection (1) of section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short 'the Rent Act') reads as under: