1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2011 Mrs. Anita Anosh Shroff ...Petitioner. v. M/s. J.M.Constructions & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. M.P.Vashi i/by M.P.Vashi and Associate , adv. For the Petitioner. Mr. P.S.Dani i/by Ms Pallavi N. Dabholkar, advs. For the Respondent No.1. Mr. S.A.K.Aajam-es-Sani i/by Maneksha and Sethna, advs. For the R.Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. The petitioner is defendant no.3 in R.A.E. Suit No. 873/1643 of 2004 pending before the Small Causes Court, Court Room No.19, Bombay. The landlord/respondent no.1 had filed two more suits being R.A.E. Suit No.467/767 of 2005 and R.A.E. Suit No.710/1152 of 2005 against the different tenants for different premises for eviction. The present petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court seeking direction to club all the three suits so that all of them should be heard and disposed off simultaneously by the same Judge. Application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the same was rejected by the Chief Judge. 2 2 It appears that in the above referred three suits, different premises being the first floor, second floor and third floor are involved and the occupants are different tenants. Landlord has filed the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirements of self in respect of one premises, bonafide requirements of his unmarried son, who is going to marry shortly, in the second premises and the bonafide requirements of married daughter in the third premises. Proceedings in all the three suits are at different stages. It appears that the present petitioner is only one of the defendants in one suit. Other co-defendants have also not supported her. In each case, the plaintiff/landlord will have to prove bonafide requirements as pleaded and as the different bonafide requirements of the different members of the family are pleaded, all the three suits can not be clubbed together. After some discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not press for clubbing of the three suits. However, he makes a request that if all the three suits are taken up by one judge, it will be convenient and all the three suits may be simultaneously disposed off. It appears that in the suit, in which the petitioner is defendant, evidence is already recorded and it is at final stage of arguments while other two suits are at the different stages of recording of evidence. If directions are given to dispose off all the three 3 matters simultaneously, naturally the disposal of the suit against the petitioner will also be delayed. Therefore, I do not see any valid reason for interfering in the impugned order. 3 Petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)