LAXMAN RAOJI BAIKAR Vs. JANARDHAN GANU SAPTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a dispute between the petitioner and several respondents about the tenancy rights of room No. 2 on the Ground Floor of 107, Dadiseth Agiari Lane, Fanaswadi, Bombay No. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the said room and claims to have obtained all rent receipts in his name since 1943. He also claims to have been residing in the said room along with his wife, daughter and son from the year 1943. In support thereof he showed us the rent receipts and a Ration Card obtained by some one other than the petitioner in 1966. Petitioner, his wifes names also appear to have been entered therein and subsequently struck. He filed an Ejectment Application being No. 724/E/1965 under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, against 8 persons including respondents Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 27 to this petition. The non-applicants to the said Ejectment Application raised a plea of being the co-tenants and an issue as to their co-tenancy or licensee was framed under section 42-A of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act and was decided against the petitioner by the trial and appeal Court and subsequently the said Ejectment Application was dismissed on 22nd September, 1976. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in Special Civil Application No. 5160 of 1976 in which rule has been granted on 19th November, 1976.

(2.) In the meanwhile, respondents No. 1 and 2 herein and other 27 persons filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No. 8165 of 1976, for a perpetual injunction against the present petitioner restraining him from bringing any female member of his family to stay in the suit premises. This relief is prayed on the basis that the plaintiffs in the suit i.e. the respondents herein are the co-tenants of the said room No. 2, with the petitioner alone. An ad interim appears to have been granted on 7th December, 1976 and Mr. Mantri the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made a statements at the bar that the ad interim injunction order in City Civil Court Suit No. 8165 of 1976 was served on the petitioner on 8th December, 1976. Still the petitioner filed A.O. No. 403 of 1976 in the High Court against that order of injunction dated 7th December, 1976 instead of appearing before the said Court and contesting the same and obtained a stay of that order of the City Civil Court when the said A.O. came for admission on 21st December, 1976, in the High Court, of which breach is claimed in this petition. According to the petitioner, this stay order was communicated to the Advocate of the respondents herein as also the respondents in the said A.O. No. 403 of 1976 on 27th December, 1976.

(3.) Mr. Morje, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a statement at the bar that a copy of the petition and the notice were served on the respondents on 27th December, 1976.