MINALINI LALIT MODI Vs. KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Minalini Lalit Modi
Click here to view full judgement.
G.S.KULKARNI, J. -
(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties heard finally.
(2.) The learned trial judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai by an order dated 25 August 2009 allowed an application (Eviction Notice) filed by the petitioner seeking a relief to implead her as a defendant in a Suit (RAE Suit No.743/2805 of 1982- Eviction Suit) instituted by respondent No.1-landlord (plaintiff). The appellate bench of the Small Causes Court by the impugned order dated 21 October 2016 has set aside the order of the learned trial judge in a Revision Application filed by respondent No.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate bench is before this Court in the present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) In nutshell the facts are :-
About thirty five years back Respondent No.1 had instituted R.A.E.Suit No.743/2805 of 1982 seeking eviction of respondent no.2-tenant from the suit premises namely a flat on the northern side, on the third floor, Carmichael House, Carmichael Road, Mumbai, (for short 'the suit flat') interalia on the ground of causing damage to the said tenanted premises. Surprisingly as also unfortunately this suit since 1982 is pending adjudication before the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay. On 28 September 2006, by filing interim notice No.2205 of 2006, being an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner sought herself to be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit, on the ground that the petitioner is the 'real tenant' of the suit flat and not the respondent No.2. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.