W.P. No. 6454 of 2005. Case: Rajendra Antharam Tijoriwala and Gujrathi Vs Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 6454 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.Y. Deshpande,Adv.and For Respondents: J.J. Chandurkar,Adv. |
| Judges | Z.A. Haq, J. |
| Issue | Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 |
| Citation | 2015 (2) MhLj 179 |
| Judgement Date | December 20, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Z.A. Haq, J., (Nagpur Bench)
-
Heard Shri P.Y. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri J.J. Chandurkar, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the other respondents though served. The petition is by the tenant challenging the judgment passed by the District Court granting decree for possession and ancillary reliefs in favour of the respondents.
-
Though it is debatable as to whether the impugned judgment and decree can be challenged in revision or in writ petition, as the writ petition is admitted and is pending for final hearing since 2005, I have taken up the petition for final hearing without delving into the issue.
-
Shri Ramratan Shrivallabh Chandak the owner of the suit property had filed proceedings under clause 13(3)(vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short "Rent Control order 1949") seeking permission of the Rent Controller to issue notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant. The Rent Controller granted permission to Shri Ramratan to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant under clause 13(3)(vii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The permission granted by the Rent Controller was confirmed in the appeal and it became final. Shri Ramratan issued the notice dated 19th June, 1974 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant from 31st July, 1974. The petitioner having not complied with the requirements of the notice and having not vacated the suit premises, Shri Ramratan filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 666/1974 in October, 1974. During the pendency of the civil suit, the suit property was transferred to Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust by the registered settlement deed dated 24th September, 1976.
-
In the civil suit the petitioner-tenant raised the defence that Shri Ramratan/plaintiff in the civil suit had transferred the ownership of the suit house to Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust and, therefore, the cause of action did not subsist in favour of Shri Ramratan. The learned trial Judge framed the issue "1(b) whether the plaintiff has subsisting cause of action against the defendant?"
The learned trial Judge by the judgment dated 8th May, 1981 dismissed the civil suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not have cause of action in his favour.
-
Shri Ramratan challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by filing the appeal. In the appeal an application was filed for impleading Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust as the appellant which came to be allowed. The petitioner-tenant had raised the objection that Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust being a public trust, all the trustees are necessary parties. Takhatmal Shrivallabh Charitable Trust filed an application (Exh. 31) seeking permission to withdraw the civil suit with liberty to file fresh civil suit. The learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial