SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES Vs. BABU BHIKU MATAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord initially filed a suit for eviction before the Small Cause Court, Bandra, Mumbai. In that suit, the respondents-tenants filed an application for injunction. They contended that the landlord was trying to demolish a toilet (euphemistically called WC, that is, a Water Closet) attached to the leased building. On merits, the Trial Court granted an injunction, restraining the landlord from demolishing any portion of the leased property, including the WC.

(2.) Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal, but the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court confirmed the injunction. Further aggrieved, the landlord filed this writ petition.

(3.) By the time, the landlord filed this writ petition, the pleadings were complete before the Trial Court. And from those pleadings, rival contentions have emerged. The landlord, in fact, disputed the very location of the WC and who constructed it. Besides that, there arose another question: has the WC been commonly used by all other people in the tenanted complex or exclusively by those tenants?. As a result, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who visited the leased premises and filed his report, along with a few photographs.