Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kalpana Koyama (also known as Kalpana R. Ghatge), filed a writ petition challenging an eviction order dated 29 August 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The eviction order was passed in a suit filed by her mother, Mrs. Vatsalaraje R. Ghatge, and her sister, Ms. Kavita R. Ghatge, due to a family dispute. The High Court had admitted the petition and granted protection to the petitioner, allowing her to remain in possession of the tenanted premises along with her mother and sister. Over time, the mother died on 9 June 2009, and the sister moved out of the premises, leaving the petitioner in sole possession under the court's protection. The original landlord/owner did not challenge the proceedings. The contesting respondents' counsel stated that they had no objection to the petitioner continuing to occupy the premises until the final decision of the suit. The court observed that there was no point in keeping the petition pending and quashed the impugned eviction order. The court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) and directed that the petitioner shall continue to retain possession until the suit is finally decided, subject to payment of necessary charges like electricity and maintenance. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent and Eviction - Family Dispute - Eviction Order - The petitioner, a daughter and original defendant, challenged an eviction order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The contesting respondents (mother and sister) had filed the suit due to a family dispute. Subsequently, the mother died and the sister moved out, leaving the petitioner in sole possession under court protection. The court held that there was no point in keeping the petition pending and quashed the eviction order, allowing the petitioner to retain possession until the suit is finally decided. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction order passed by the Small Causes Court should be sustained in light of the subsequent events including the death of the plaintiff mother and the sister moving out, and the petitioner's continued possession under court protection.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29 August 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue to retain possession of the tenanted premises until the suit is finally decided. The petitioner shall continue to pay necessary charges like electricity and maintenance. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
Law Points
- Eviction order set aside due to change in circumstances
- family dispute resolved
- possession protected pending suit
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 32
Writ Petition No.794 of 1999
None for the Petitioner; Ms. Namrata Vinod I/b. M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Kalpana Koyama (Kalpana R. Ghatge)
Mrs. Vatsalaraje R. Ghatge, Ms. Kavita R. Ghatge
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an eviction order passed by the Small Causes Court in a family dispute over tenanted premises.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the eviction order and retain possession of the tenanted premises.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a daughter and original defendant, was aggrieved by the eviction order passed against her in a suit filed by her mother and sister due to a family dispute.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai passed an eviction order dated 29 August 1998. The High Court admitted the petition and granted protection to the petitioner, allowing her to remain in possession.
Issues
Whether the eviction order should be sustained in light of subsequent events including the death of the plaintiff mother and the sister moving out.
Submissions/Arguments
The contesting respondents' counsel stated that the mother died on 9 June 2009 and the sister moved out, and there was no objection to the petitioner continuing to occupy the premises.
Ratio Decidendi
In a family dispute over tenanted premises, where the original plaintiffs (mother and sister) have either died or moved out and do not press the eviction, the eviction order can be quashed and the defendant allowed to retain possession pending final decision of the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition is filed by one of the daughters (original Defendant No.1) thereby challenging order dated 29 August, 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai whereby the eviction order was issued.
Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the view that there is not point in keeping the petition pending as the Petitioner (Kalpana), who is in possession of the premises, will continue to retain the possession till the appropriate proceedings, if any, initiated by the owner / landlord.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the mother and sister against the petitioner in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which passed an eviction order on 29 August 1998. The petitioner challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No.794 of 1999 in the Bombay High Court. The High Court admitted the petition and granted protection to the petitioner, allowing her to remain in possession. The matter was listed for final hearing in summer vacation 2017. The mother died on 9 June 2009 and the sister moved out. The court disposed of the petition on 1 June 2017, quashing the eviction order and allowing the petitioner to retain possession pending suit.
