1 CAC-613-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURTE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2009 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 2687 OF 1980 mhi Sonabai Ramchandra Marathe Since deceased Through her legal heirs : 1. Ramchandra Bhau Marathe & Ors. .. Applicants/Petitioner/ (Orig. defendants) vs. Smt. Shaila Marutirao Naik ... Respondent (Org. plaintiff) Ms. M.P.Bhalerao i/b.Shri S.R.Gelye, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri P.B.Gujar, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th December,2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. To state in brief, the respondent had filed RAE & R Suit No.2687 of 1980 against the deceased defendant Sonabai for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of Room No.7 in Farook House on plot No.565A, N.M.Joshi Marg, Bombay 400 011. According to her, she was the 2 CAC-613-11.sxw landlady and Sonabai was the tenant. The defendant had contended that she was inducted as sub-tenant in the suit premises by late Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, who was a tenant of the Corporation. It was contended that the rent was paid to said Abdul Latif. The plaintiff represented that she was the landlady and believing her false representation, the defendant had made payment to her for some time. Later on, she came to know that the premises were not transferred in the name of the plaintiff and that tenancy in favour of Abdul Latif was terminated and, therefore, according to her, the suit for eviction and possession was liable to be dismissed. 3. The trial Court after hearing the evidence of both the parties decreed the suit. Against that judgment and decree, the defendant had preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, the defendant fled Civil Revision Application No.217 of 2009. On 7.4.2010, when the Revision Application came up for admission and final hearing, the learned Counsel for the revision applicant/defendant, after taking instructions from his client, made a statement that the defendant would not press the Revision Application with a request that she should be allowed to retain possession upto 31st December, 2010. Therefore, subject to her giving undertaking within the stipulated period, she was allowed to retain possession upto 31st December, 2010. Later on, on request of the defendant, 3 CAC-613-11.sxw the period of vacating the premises was extended upto 31st March, 2011. Inspite of the expiry of that period, she did not vacate the premises. 4. Now the defendant has has expired. Her L.R.s have filed this application contending that taking recourse to Right to Information Act now they have come across a document to show the lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 8.6.1983 after death of original tenant Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to file suit for eviction in 1980 and in view of this evidence, the judgments passed in favor of the plaintiff are liable to be set aside. 5. On perusal of record, it appears that deceased Abdul Latif was tenant of Bombay Municipal Corporation in respect of the open land. On that land, he had constructed a chawl. From that chawl, a room was let out to the defendant as tenant of Abdul Latif. Abdul Latif transferred his chawl in favour of the plaintiff. After death of Abdul Latif, the lease of the land beneath the structure was transferred in favour of the plaintiff by Municipal Corporation in 1983. The defendant was not the tenant in respect of the open land, but was tenant in respect of a room from that structure or chawl. Therefore, merely because the lease deed of the land was executed by Municipal Corporation in favour of the plaintiff in 4 CAC-613-11.sxw 1983, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not competent to file the suit for eviction. The document which is found by the applicants now from the Municipal Corporation about the lease deed of the land in favour of the plaintiff does not help them in any manner. Therefore, there is no substance in the present application. The defendant was is in possession of the premises for last 31 years after filing the suit for eviction. Even after giving undertaking before this Court to vacate the premises by the end of December, 2010, she did not vacate. She also did not vacate even within the extended period till 31st March,2011 and now this is another attempt by her L.Rs. to prolong the litigation. 6. In view of the above, the Application stands rejected with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the applicants to the respondent-landlady. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)