WP. 3065, 3066-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3065 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3066 OF 2011 Mrs. Arnavaz Rustomji Printer ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Dinshaw Rusi Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Sunip Sen, Sr. counsel with Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Agnel Carneiro i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for Respondents *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MAY 4, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application, filed in a suit for declaration of tenancy, and which order was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 2. It is submitted that one Manekjee Nallaseth and his son Rustomji Palhiwalla were residing in Flat E 37 and E 38. Rustomjee WP. 3065, 3066-11 - 2 - Palkhiwalla has six children. Out of which only Khorshed married and plaintiff was the only daughter. Thereafter Plaintiff resided at several other places. According to the plaintiff, in 1987 since last two children of Rustomji were siding in the two flats and they were both old and unwell, plaintiff moved in the said flat with family to look after the two persons. The respondent filed a suit against Minoo Palkhiwala for eviction. In the mean time on 28-2-1988, before the said suit was filed, Miss Shera Rustomjee died and the petitioner succeeded to her tenancy, being a family membr of decesed Shera Palkhiwala. The said suit was decreed on 22-2-1999. When the respondents came to take possession, Minoo Palkhiwalla asked for time and thereafter she died on 21-1-2000. When the respondents tried to execute the decree, there was an obstruction to the execution. However, the obstructionist’s notice which was taken out by the respondent was allowed. Thereafter in August, 2000 petitioner filed the present suit for declaration of tenancy. Trial Court refused to grant injunction. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. It is submitted that plaintiff is a tenant within the meaning of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is submitted that the decree which was sought to be executed was a nullity since relationship of landlord and tenant was not pleaded in the suit against Minoo Palkhiwalla. WP. 3065, 3066-11 - 3 - 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that decree which was passed in favour of the respondents in the year 1999 was obstructed by the petitioner herein, by making various false and frivolous allegations. Initially, son of the plaintiff had obstructed execution of the decree at her instance when she was in the hospital. The said Obstructionist’s notice, which was taken out by the respondents, was allowed and now the plaintiff has filed this suit. It is submitted that the suit was not maintainable, in view of provisions of Order 21, Rule 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the affidavit, filed by plaintiff’s son and the other orders passed. 4. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and after having gone through the judgment and orders passed by both the lower Courts, it is obvious that plaintiff is trying to raise various pleas through various persons at various stages. Both the Courts have given cogent reasons while dismissing the application for interim injunction. In my view, therefore, this is not a fit case for interfering with the interim order passed by both the Courts below. Both the Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]