1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2432 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2034 OF 2008 Mumtaz Begaum ...Plaintiff Vs. Razia Parveen Shaikh ...Defendant Ms.S.A. Mudbidri, Advocate for the Plaintiff Mr. Manoj S. Mhambrey, Advocate for the Defendant CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Plaintiff claims to have purchased the Suit premises which is a small room admeasuring 64 sq. ft in Pauwala Chawl initially numbered 117 and later re-numbered 19 therein. The purchase is stated to have been made in 1983. It is shown under an affidavit iaffirmed by one Shaikh Azim dated 30th December 1983 as well as the Plaintiff for room No.117 showing that the premises is transferred to the Plaintiff and one writing also dated 30th December 1983. These documents are unregistered. The Plaintiff cannot rely upon these documents for establishing her cause of action. 2 2. It is the Plaintiff’s case that after she purchased the Suit premises as mentioned in the aforesaid documents she resided therein with her husband and children. After 1994 she did not reside in the Suit premises because she was employed as a Domestic Maid outside Mumbai. She claims that her husband and children resided in the Suit premises and her husband later divorced her. 3. It is the Plaintiff’s case that she returned in 2008 and was issued a notice which was addressed to her Advocate from the Chawl Committee of the Society showing that she had run up arrears of Rs.20,000/- between September 1997 and March 2008. 4. The letter prima facie appears to have been got up. There is absolutely no evidence showing that any charge could be levied by the Chawl Committee of the Society or that the Plaintiff had paid any charge. The original notice addressed to an Advocate shows 3 signatures other than the Secretary’s signature who has signed the notice. It shows that it is received by the Advocate. The Plaintiff has relied upon copies of 2 letters issued by the same Advocate to the Honorary Secretary of the Chawl Committee dated 5th March 2008 and 19th December 2008 putting on record the Plaintiff’s case. Copy letters produced by the Plaintiff shows the signature not of the Honorary Secretary of the Chawl Committee, but of the Plaintiff instead. 5. The Plaintiff has not produced any circumstantial evidence of her possession in the Suit premises upon her purchase of the Suit premises also 3 by way of any ration card, election card, electricity bills etc. 6. In fact the Defendant has produced documents to show how she purchased the Suit premises as well as how she continues to live in Suit premises purchased by her. The Defendant’s documents are also unregistered and are not required to be seen or commented upon save and except the ration card of the Defendant which is shown to be issued initially on 29th December 1998 and later on 30th September 1999, soon after the purchase alleged by the Defendant. The ration card shows the residence of the Defendant with her brother and mother at the suit address being room No. 19 in Pauwala Chawl. Prima facie case of the Defendant’s ownership or continuance of her possession in the Suit premises is seen. 7. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. 8. The interim order shall continue for 2 weeks. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)