IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2007 VIJAY OMKARMAL GANDHI ..PETITIONER V/S MR. KUTUBUDDIN MOHMEDBHAI KANCHWALA & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS Mr.R.A. Thorat & Mr. P.J. Thorat, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish R. Agarwal, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: DATE: DATE: 25th March, 2008. 25th March, 2008. 25th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Appeal is filed by the obstructionist against the rejection of his application of the obstruction. 2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the landlords and decree holders. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were their tenants and one Judgment debtors. The Respondent Nos. : 2 : 1 to 4 had filed Suit No. 789 of 1996 for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises admeasuring 300 square ft. situated at 323, Ravivar Peth, Ground Floor, Pune, on several grounds. After contest, the suit was decreed by the judgment dated 28-2-2003 and the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to vacate the premises and to handover possession to the landlords within 2 months. The Appeal preferred by them against that judgment was dismissed on 14-5-2004. Thereafter the tenants filed Writ Petition No. 7206 of 2004 challenging the said judgment. The writ petition also came to be dismissed on 4-10-2004. However, on request on behalf of the tenants they were allowed to vacate the premises till 31 January 2005 subject to submitting usual undertaking. Inspite of the said undertaking, even after the expiry of the said period the tenants did not vacate the premises. Therefore, the landlord - decree holders filed Execution proceedings for possession. On 2-7-2005 when the bailiff went to the said premises to execute the warrant of possession, the petitioner/obstructionist was present in the suit premises and he obstructed the execution of warrant in writing and, therefore, the warrant of possession could : 3 : not be executed. In view of this, the decree holder filed Application No. 70 of 2005 on 30th April 2005 for removal of the obstruction. The obstructionist also filed the Petition contending that he was in possession of the premises since 1968 as a sub-tenant and that he was regularly paying the rent of the premises to the original tenants. According to him, in view of this, he himself had become the tenant and, therefore, the decree could not be executed as he was not a party to the suit for eviction. 3. The learned Executing Court heard the evidence led by both the parties and passed a reasoned order rejecting the obstruction and directed that the obstruction be removed and the possession warrant be executed. Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant/Obstructionist has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the Executing court. From the record and the said judgment it appears that the obstructionist produced an agreement dated 20th June, 1968 purported to have been signed by the original tenant - Hansraj Jain, father of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. He also produced a bunch of rent receipts from the year 1971 to 1998 with list Exhibit-3. After perusal of those documents and admitted signatures of Hansraj Jain : 4 : on the counter foils of the rent receipts issued by the landlord to Hansraj Jain, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that the signatures on the disputed agreement and on the rent receipts relied upon by the obstructionist were different from the admitted signatures of Hansraj Jain on the counterfoils of rent receipts. The learned Executing Court noted that Hansraj always signed as "Hansraj Jain" and never as "Hansraj Taraji Sanghvi". However, on the agreement of 1968 and the rent receipts produced by the obstructionist the signature was as "Hansraj Taraji Sanghvi". The learned Executing Court also noted that if the signatures on the counter foils of the rent receipts are minutely perused they appears to have been signed at one time. It is material to note that Hansraj died in the year 1987. It was never the case of the tenant that any sub-tenant was in occupation of the premises. It appears that the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, being the L.Rs of the original tenant Hanraj, had contested the suit filed in 1996 and had also filed Appeal as well as Writ Petition challenging the judgment and decree. After they were unsuccessful, the obstructionist came into picture at the time of the : 5 : execution of the decree. The Executing Court considered several aspects including the aspect of licence, telephone no. etc. to come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the obstructionist was not reliable. Having considered the evidence, the learned Executing Court also came to the conclusion that the documents relied upon by the obstructionist are not genuine and are not reliable. 4. It should be noted that this is not an Appeal but only Revision Application against the impugned order. The scope of the revision is very limited. There is nothing to show that the material placed before the Executing Court not considered nor there is anything to show that the finding of the Executing Court are per se illegal or perverse. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. : 6 : 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Revision Applicant - Obstructionist seeks stay to the effect of this order. Request refused. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)