J.M. CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. SHAMROCK IMPEX PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both the Writ petitions claims to be the landlord having succeeded its predecessor-in-interest. That predecessor inducted the first respondent into the property as a lessee. The petitioner, as the lessor, filed R.A.E. Suit No. 467/767 of 2005 for eviction. Its principle plea is that it bona fide needs the property. Issues framed, the trial began. Then the lessor filed Exhibit-A witness summons, requiring the Senior Police Inspector, L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, to produce eight documents. Through an order, dated 18.03.2016, the Trial Court allowed the lessor's application. Then, that order has led to two Writ petitions.

(2.) The lessees filed WP No. 4833 of 2016 and 4842 of 2016, assailing the trial Court's order. Eventually, they withdrew both the writ petitions. It was without prejudice to their right to question, during the trial, the relevance of those documents. Then, the police officer concerned produced all the documents except document no. 7. That is the Chief Police Prosecutor's opinion, dt. 29.03.2005. But it emerged from the police officer's reply that the 7th document lies with another police authority.

(3.) In that context, the lessor filed another witness summons; the lessees, however, opposed it. Eventually, the Trial Court, through its order dated 16.01.2018, rejected the lessor's claim to have the document summoned from another police station. Aggrieved, the lessor has filed Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2018.