VIJAYKUMAR RAMRANG CHAUDHAR Vs. D K SOONAWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter-alia seeking an order and decree against the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the flat No. 1b in the building known as Jawaharabad in hawaharabad Co-operative Housing Society at Plot No. 35, 9th Road, TPS (IV)Bandra, Bombay. Further reliefs are also sought as and by way of damages and various other interim reliefs.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in use, occupation and possession of the premises under a leave and licence agreement dated 1-11-1972 and he has been physically dispossessed from the suit premises sometime or about in November, 1995 by the defendant. In view of the unlawful dispossession, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the premises under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is the case of the plaintiff that a prior suit in the Small Causes Court is pending which was filed by the mother of the defendant No. 1 and the wife of defendant No. 2 being R. A. E. Suit No. 102/257/1990 for eviction. The said suit was pending uptil 1997. It is further case of the plaintiff that when the plaintiff was out of station, the defendants, taking advantage thereof, took forcible possession of the premises and, on returning in 1995 the plaintiff found that he is dispossessed from the suit premises. Accordingly, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff being C. R. No. 679 of 1995 which is registered. The defendant No. 1 was arrested and was released on bail on 22-1-1996.

(3.) THE present suit has been filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief act, 1963 and writ of summons was issued by the Prothonotary and Senior master on 22-3-1996. The writ of summons was lodged on 8-9-1996 and on 18-9-1996 the writ of summons was transmitted by Registered A. D. for service to the defendants. In the meantime, the defendants were also served by personal service since the plaintiffs were also seeking urgent ad-interim orders in the present suit. Pursuant to the said service, the defendants engaged an Advocate and the matter was heard for ad-interim relief and, ad-interim reliefs were granted in favour of the plaintiff herein.