vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1325 OF 2000 SUIT NO.1325 OF 2000 SUIT NO.1325 OF 2000 Nandkishore L. Mehta ... Plaintiff V/s. Sanjay Shirke ... Defendant Mr.Farhan Dubhash a/w Ms.Prachi Mhatre i/b M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co. for Plaintiff None for Defendant CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 5, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit is listed under the caption ‘for ex-parte decree’. An affidavit proving service of the writ of summons dated 15.11.2007 is on record. The learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has tendered on record an affidavit of the plaintiff dated 3.2.2009. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 2. The plaintiff has stated that he is the owner and otherwise seized and possessed of the will and sufficiently entitled to the immovable property admeasuring 1489 sq.yards situated at the Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai and bearing old survey No.17, new survey NO.1/7282 and Collector’s land revenue numbers 42 (old) and 50, 52, 54 and 56 (new) alongwith the structures : 2 : standing thereon known as Rustomji Fakirji Building (the suit property). The plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of one room situated on the ground floor of the suit property which room is situated between the Rooms occupied by Sheetal Refrigeration and M/s.Kapadia Tailors respectively. The plaintiff states that the defendant has taken forcible possession of th suit property on 12.3.2000 and has dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises. The plaintiff states that he became the owner of the property and was put in vacant and peaceful possession of the said property under an agreement dated 5.11.1979 executed between the plaintiff and one Mrs.Perin Fakirji Doctor. The plaintiff states that the plaintiffs had posted security guards at the suit premises since 1980. 3. The plaintiff states that on 12.3.2000, the security guards posted at the suit property informed him that the defendant had come to the suit property with his hirelings and took forcible possession of the suit premises on the ground floor by putting his (defendant’s) lock on the door of the suit premises. The plaintiff through his son Pankaj Mehta thereafter immediately filed an FIR with the Malabar Hill Police station dated 12.3.2000. The plaintiff states that the police subsequently visited the suit premises on : 3 : 13.3.2000 and filed a Panchanama for the same. The plaintiff states that the police have recorded the statements of security guards as well as the other tenants on the ground floor in occupation of the other shops of the said building. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff has submitted that he is forcibly dispossessed and he is entitled to an order and decree directing the defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 4. I have perused the averments made in the plaint and the evidence and have also gone through the documents exhibited alongwith the evidence of the plaintiff. The documents at exhibits P-1 and P-2 shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the said building. The document at exhibit P-3 shows that the plaintiff had appointed security services for the purposes of securing the said building. The document at exhibit P-5 shows that the FIR dated 13.3.2000 has been filed with the Malabar Hill Police Station informing them that the defendant alongwith his hirelings had on 12.3.2000 at around 2 pm taken forcible possession of the suit premises from the security guards appointed by the plaintiff and have thereafter locked the suit premises. From the document at exhibit P-6 which is the panchanama alongwith the statements of the security guards and the other tenants of the said building, it is : 4 : proved/established that on 12.3.2000, the defendant alongwith his hirelings at around 2 pm have taken forcible possession of the suit premises from the security guards of the plaintiff. 5. There is no written statement filed though at the time of application made by the plaintiff for interim reliefs the defendant was represented through an advocate. The entire case of the plaintiff has therefore gone unchallenged. There is no reason as to why the case put up by the plaintiff should not be accepted. The plaintiff is seeking an order and decree against the defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. In my view the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed. 6. Hence, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. The suit is accordingly disposed of. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)