1 CAC-612-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURTE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 612 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2009 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 2686 OF 1980 mhi Ramchandra Bhau Marathe ... Applicant/Petitioner vs. Smt. Shaila Marutirao Naik ... Respondent 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.2686 of 1980 against the present applicant for recovery of possession and for arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of Room No.6 in Farook House on plot No. 565A, N.M.Joshi Marg, Bombay 400 011. According to her, she was the landlady and the present applicant was the tenant. The applicant/defendant had contended that he was inducted as sub-tenant in the suit premises by late Abdul Latif Abbas 2 CAC-612-11.sxw 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 him, 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.216 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 he should be allowed to retain possession upto 31st December, 2010. Therefore, subject to his giving undertaking within the stipulated period, he was allowed to retain possession upto 31st December, 2010. Later on, on request of the defendant, the period for vacating the premises was extended upto 31st March, 2011. Inspite of the expiry of that period, he did not vacate the premises. 3 CAC-612-11.sxw 4. Now the defendant has filed this application contending that taking recourse to Right to Information Act now he has come across a document to show that the lease deed was executed by Municipal Corporation 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 favour 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 present applicant 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 1983, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not competent to file the suit for eviction. The document which is found by the defendant/applicant now 4 CAC-612-11.sxw from the Municipal Corporation about the lease deed of the land in favour of the plaintiff does not help her in any manner. Therefore, there is no substance in the present application. The applicant 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, he did not vacate. He also did not vacate even within the extended period till 31st March,2011 and now this is another attempt 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 applicant to the respondent-landlady. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)