1 9 ao 1040.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1040 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1264 OF 2010 Jagdish Ramkishan Gupta ..Appellant. v/s. M/s Sunil Constructions & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. K.K.Pandey for the Appellant. Mr. Vikas Warerkar i/b Mr. Warerkar & Warerkar for the Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 Plaintiff/Appellant filed Short Cause Suit No.845 of 2010 claiming declaration that he is entitled to be rehabilitated in the new development to be undertaken by the Respondent no.1/Builder on behalf of the Respondent no.2 Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He took out Notice of Motion No.1185 of 2010 seeking the direction that he should not be dispossessed from the Room 2 9 ao 1040.10.doc situated in Sonia Budhia Compound, L.T.Road, Near Dahisar Railway Station, Dahisar West, Mumbai, till he is provided alternative accommodation in the new building developed for the purpose of rehabilitation of tenants. The Notice of Motion was opposed by the Respondents contending that the Appellant was not residing in any separate room but was residing as a member of the family of his father. All the members of that family were living in one room i.e. Room No.41. His father has been provided alternative accommodation in the new building and therefore, the Appellant is not entitled to any separate accommodation. He may live with his father in the new building. The trial court after hearing the parties and after perusal of the documents rejected the Notice of Motion. 3 The Appellant has based his claim on some documents. One is the agreement dated 31st July, 1991 under which he claims to have purchased one room from Smt. Tara Kanti Desai for consideration of `6,000/- and another is ration card with electricity bills. As far as the agreement dated 31st July, 1991 is concerned, that document is not registered even though by the said document one room was allegedly sold for consideration of `6,000/-. In view of the provisions of the Registration Act and the 3 9 ao 1040.10.doc Transfer of the Property Act when any immovable properties worth `100/- or more is sold the sale deed requires to be compulsorily registered. As this document was admittedly not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. Besides this objection about the admissibility of the document, it appears that the document was entered into by vendor Smt.Tara Kant Desai on one hand and the Appellant and his father Ramkishan Gupta on the other. The Appellant and his father Ramkishan both have signed this document as purchasers. This document also does not mention the Room number which was purchased nor the boundaries of the room, which was purchased, are mentioned in this document. 4 On the ration card, in the name of the Petitioner also room number is not mentioned. The learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out that in the electoral role prepared in 1995 for the purpose of elections to the State Legislature, names of Ramkishan Gupta, his son Jagdish, daughter-in-law Maya w/o Jagdish, another son Dinesh, daughter-in-law Sadhana w/o Dinesh and another son Umesh are shown at serial nos.112 to 117. In column no.2 of that electoral role, the address consisting of the floor and the room number is mentioned. All these six members of the family are shown to be living in Room no.41 at the ground 4 9 ao 1040.10.doc floor. Admittedly, Ramkishan Gupta has held eligible for rehabilitation in the new building and he has been allotted accommodation accordingly. From this electoral role it appears that present Appellant was living as a member of the family of his father in the same room. There is no evidence to show that he was living in separate room independently from his father. In view of this material, prima facie, there is nothing to show that the Plaintiff/Appellant was living in a separate room. Admittedly, he has been held to be not eligible for rehabilitation. In the given circumstances, it is difficult to find any fault in the impugned order rejecting the Notice of Motion. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6 As the Appeal from Order is disposed of, the Civil Application No. 1264 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed of. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]