CRA – 617 / 12 v. Kunverji Premji & Ors.

Mr. R. D. Mishra for the Applicant. S. John i/b M. P. Savla & Co., for Respondent No. 1 and 24. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 29, 2012. P. C. :

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 filed suit against Respondent No. 26 under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 for decree of eviction. Decree is granted by the learned trial Court and it has achieved finality. This decree is obstructed by Respondent Nos.27 to 58 and the present Applicants. Respondent Nos.1 to 25, therefore, took out Obstructionist Notices, which were made absolute by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. Hence, the present revision.

The Applicants specifically claim rights in the suit patilsr CRA – 617 / 12. premises through Respondent No.26 – original defendant. The Applicants therefore do not claim any independent right in the suit premises.

The only point raised by the Applicants is that the suit of Respondent Nos.1 to 25 under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 Act was not maintainable and therefore the decree in their favour is nullity which cannot be executed. This submission was advanced on the footing that Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is applicable to the suit premises especially when suit was filed in the year 1985. The submission cannot be accepted. Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 deals with exemptions. Perusal of said section makes it clear that said Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or any local authority. There is no dispute that the suit premises belongs to the Government. Certainly, therefore same is exempted from the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Respondent Nos.1 to 25 rightly therefore filed suit under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act,

Having held that the suit is maintainable under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 patilsr CRA – 617 / 12. and decree passed in the said suit having achieved finality coupled with the fact that the Applicants are not claiming any independent right in the suit premises and in fact claiming through Respondent No. 26, I do not find any merit in the revision. No fault can be found with the impugned order.

At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicants states that some time may be granted to the Applicants to vacate the suit premises. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 has no objection for granting reasonable time to the Applicants for vacating the suit premises. In the interests of justice, eight weeks' time is granted to the Applicants to vacate the suit premises subject to filing of usual undertakings within three weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.) patilsr