Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Zaverben Mavji Hariya, filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, seeking a declaration that she was a lawful tenant of Flat No.310, 3rd Floor, Rajni Mahal, Tardeo Road, Mumbai, and an injunction restraining the respondents, the Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA), from dispossessing her without due process of law. She claimed that the flat was allotted to her by MHADA in 1986 vide allotment letter dated 16.07.1986, and she had been in lawful possession since then. She also stated that one Mr. Vinod Bafna, who was like her son, resided with her. In 1997, MHADA issued notices to Mr. Vinod Bafna alleging unlawful occupation, prompting the appellant to file a previous suit (S.C. Suit No. 2422 of 1997) for similar relief. In that suit, MHADA failed to file a written statement, but cross-examination of the appellant was conducted. The present suit (S.C. Suit No. 2498 of 2011) was filed after the earlier suit was disposed of. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove her authorized possession in the suit structure. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that the appellant had produced the allotment letter and rent receipts, which were not rebutted by the respondent. The court held that the trial court's finding was perverse and that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, restraining MHADA from dispossessing her without due process of law.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Tenancy Rights - Lawful Possession - Burden of Proof - The appellant claimed tenancy of a flat allotted by MHADA in 1986. The trial court dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction, holding that the appellant failed to prove her authorized possession. The High Court reversed, finding that the appellant had produced the allotment letter dated 16.07.1986 and rent receipts, which were not rebutted by the respondent. The court held that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof and was entitled to protection against dispossession without due process of law. (Paras 3-10) B) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Cross-examination without Written Statement - The respondent failed to file a written statement in the earlier suit, but cross-examination of the appellant was conducted. The High Court noted that the trial court's finding that the appellant failed to prove possession was perverse, as the evidence on record, including the allotment letter and rent receipts, clearly established her lawful possession. (Paras 5-10) C) Property Law - Injunction - Dispossession without Due Process - The appellant sought injunction restraining MHADA from dispossessing her without due process of law. The High Court held that since the appellant proved her lawful possession, she was entitled to the injunction. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant proved her lawful possession and tenancy rights in the suit flat, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that she failed to prove authorized possession.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in S.C. Suit No. 2498 of 2011 is set aside. The suit is decreed in favor of the appellant. Respondents are restrained from dispossessing the appellant from the suit flat without due process of law.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Lawful possession
- Allotment letter
- Rent receipts
- Burden of proof
- Written statement
- Cross-examination without written statement
- Injunction against dispossession without due process
