1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1186 OF 2008 Capt.Arun Sethi .. Petitioner Versus Ahtesham Sayed & Ors. .. Respondents Petitioner in person Mr.H.M.Advani for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Mr.H.J.Thacker with A.I.Talegawkar i/b. M/s.B.K.Girdharilal for respondent No.6 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th March 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the trial court and 2 confirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. Petitioner appearing in person was granted enough opportunity by this Court to delete the references to the Advocates and the learned Judges of the courts below who have decided the matter. It appears that the party in person has deleted the references to the Advocates but has retained other references wherein be has cast aspersions on the parties to the litigation before the court below. 3. It is unfortunate that one of the parties in the court below is a sitting Judge of this Court. He and his family members are sought to be embarrassed by making repeated references to them in the petition memo and also by annexing unnecessary and irrelevant material with regard to the alleged corruption in the judiciary. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is appearing in person so also is disturbed by 3 the public advertisement and proceedings against him by his own parents, who have disowned him long back, I am not taking any serious action. Suffice it to state that this Court has not approved of the manner in which the petition was drafted and is being prosecuted. The petitioner is cautioned that in future any such attempts would be viewed with requisite seriousness as they involve independence of the judiciary and question of public faith and confidence in the administration of justice. 4. Petitioner is the original plaintiff in a suit which he has filed against the landlord/ owner of an immovable property in Mumbai. To the suit, petitioner has impleaded as Defendant No.6, his mother. An injunction was claimed against the mother restraining her from creating any third party rights or alienating or encumbering the suit property or surrendering the same to the landlords. 4 5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he is facing litigation in the family court, city civil court and small causes court. The flat is being occupied by the mother and his wife and children who have deserted him. Petitioner resides at Cuffe Parade independently. There are allegations made by his wife and family members against him. His grievance is that an attempt is made by the mother to deprive him and his sisters of the flat and it is likely that she will collude with the landlord. 6. It is on such basis that interim injunction was claimed. The trial court has upon a perusal of the materials produced before it and hearing the petitioner as also the defendants to the suit, by a detailed order held that the petitioner could not prima facie prove that he has any right in the suit property as a Tenant. His father was the original occupant. His father 5 was paying rent and thereafter his mother is occupying the said flat. Therefore, during her lifetime and as she was found to be residing with petitioner’s father the trial court held that section 5(11)(C) of the Old Rent Act and Section 7(15) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 cannot be construed to prima facie give any right to petitioner. That apart, learned Judge has adverted to all materials and held that the petitioner’s apprehension cannot be said to be well founded as the landlord is allowing the lady to occupy the premises. She is paying rent and she is not desirous of creating any third party rights therein. Apart from the fact that what third party right she could create is not spelt out, in the light of the denials of defendant No.6, the trial court held that there is no case made out for issuance of any interim injunction and notice was discharged. 7. Lower Appellate Court has upon 6 re-appraisal and re-appreciation of this material held that trial court’s finding does not suffer from any error, the same being in consonance with the pleadings and documents produced cannot be said to be perverse either. 8. The party in person can be protected by observing that all observations of the courts below are tentative and prima facie and they will not necessarily influence the court while the suit is being tried. It will be tried on the basis of documentary and oral evidence led by the parties. These are only interim orders and all contentions on merits of both sides are, therefore, kept open. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find that this is a fit case for interference with the concurrent orders rendered at the interlocutory stage, in my limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition 7 dismissed. 10. The petitioner in person wants me to refer to an order which has been annexed by him in the compilation and more particularly to his written argument. That is an order passed on a chamber summons. That chamber summons is in a suit being in S.C.Suit No.4492 of 1992. Petitioner desired to be impleaded as a party to that suit which is filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Learned Judge has made a reference to all proceedings and held that in a suit filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary party. That is a matter between the landlord/owner and the mother who is defendant to the suit. Learned Judge having rejected the chamber summons, I see no reason to refer to this order and that too when it is made in distinct proceedings. Apart from the fact that the chamber summons has been rejected, the operative 8 order sufficiently protects the petitioner, is his case in the written argument. 11. On the same lines, even my observations sufficiently protect him and will not prejudice him at the trial. Petition dismissed. 12. At this stage the petitioner prays for leave to appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Considering the nature of the proceedings, I do not think that this is a fit case for grant of such leave. Leave refused. Learned Counsel appearing for original defendant No.6 states that the defendant No.6 has no intention to induct a third party in the suit premises or transfer them. This statement is made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties in the subject suit and the same would definitely protect party in person in case he desires to approach higher court. 9 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)