Case Note & Summary
These Civil Revision Applications were filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the common judgment and order dated 4 May 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal Nos. 27 of 2019 and 28 of 2019. The Appellate Bench had allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court's judgment dated 3 November 2018, thereby dismissing Obstructionist Notice No. 15 of 2006. The obstructionist notice was initially filed by the applicants, who were the plaintiffs in T.E. & R. Suit No. 66 of 2002. The suit was filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 for recovery of possession of an open plot of land bearing Final Plot No. 650 at Bandra, Mumbai, which had been leased since 1934. The lessee Moogatlal Bhat had constructed three temporary structures (Galas/Shops) on the land and let them out to various occupants. After the death of Moogatlal Bhat and subsequent leases, the last surviving joint tenant Vijaykumar Bhat, who was a protected tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, died in 1996, leaving his heirs as defendants. The suit was decreed on consent terms dated 29 April 2006 against the heirs of Vijaykumar Bhat (defendants no. 8 to 11). When the decree was sought to be executed, obstruction was caused by the occupants of the three galas, including White Rose Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Girnar Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., which claimed assignment from original occupant Halimabai Madraswala in 1994) and other individuals. The trial court allowed the obstructionist notice, directing the obstructionists to hand over possession and permitting demolition. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, upholding the obstructionists' right to occupy the galas despite the eviction decree against the original tenants. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present revision applications. The judgment text provided does not contain the High Court's reasoning or final order.
Issue of Consideration
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 417 OF 2022
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Civil Revision Application No. 417 of 2022 with Civil Revision Application No. 418 of 2022
Mr. Nusrat Shah with Mr. Kevin Gala, Ms. Sayali Ramugade i/b. Ms. Samaa Shah, for the Applicant in CRA-418/2022. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Ms. Samaa Shah for the Applicant in CRA-417-2022. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Aseem Naphade, Ms. Kausar Banatwala, Mr. Pratik Shah and Ms. Sneha Mahawar i/b. Mr. Tushar A. Goradia, for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in CRA-417-2022. Mr. Rohan Savant, with Mr. Ashish Dube, Mr. Ashok Chopra, Ms. Gayatri Gupta and Mr. Aman Saraf for Respondent No.2 in both CRA. Ms. Tasneem Azmi I /b. Mr. Rajiv Mane, for Respondent Nos.7 to 10 in both CRA. Ms. Ema Almeida with Ms. Archana Jha, for Respondent No.11 in both CRA.
Darryl D’Monte (deleted since deceased) and Ors.
Vadilal Kunverji Gada & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against appellate order allowing appeals and dismissing obstructionist notice, thereby upholding obstructionists' right to occupy three gala/shops on suit property despite eviction decree against original tenants.
Remedy Sought
Applicants (original plaintiffs) sought setting aside of appellate order and restoration of trial court's order directing obstructionists to hand over vacant possession and permit demolition of the shops.
Filing Reason
Appellate court allowed obstructionists' appeals and dismissed the obstructionist notice, preventing the plaintiffs from executing the consent eviction decree.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court allowed Obstructionist Notice No. 15 of 2006 on 3 November 2018, directing obstructionists to hand over possession and permitting demolition. Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court reversed on 4 May 2022, dismissing the obstructionist notice.
Judgment Excerpts
The obstructionists’ right to occupy the three Galas/Shops constructed in suit the suit property is thus upheld by the Appellate Court despite passing of the eviction decree against the Defendants in the Suit.
By the impugned order, the Appellate Bench has allowed the Appeals and has set aside the judgment and order dated 3 November 2018 passed by the Learned Judge, Small Causes Court in Obstructionist Notice No. 15 of 2006 filed in T.E. & R. Suit No. 66 of 2002 and the said Obstructionist Notice filed by the Applicant has been dismissed.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed T.E. & R. Suit No. 66 of 2002 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 for recovery of possession of the suit land. Consent decree passed on 29 April 2006 against defendants no. 8 to 11. During execution, obstruction was caused by occupants of three galas. Plaintiffs filed Obstructionist Notice No. 15 of 2006. Trial Court (Small Causes Court) allowed the notice on 3 November 2018, directing obstructionists to hand over possession and permitting demolition. Obstructionists filed Appeal Nos. 27 of 2019 and 28 of 2019. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the appeals on 4 May 2022, set aside the trial court order, and dismissed the obstructionist notice. Plaintiffs filed Civil Revision Application Nos. 417 and 418 of 2022 before the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order XX Rule 12
- Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882: Section 41
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 15
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
