1 wp6601.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6601 OF 2010 Shamsunder Shantaram Thakre since deceased through L.Rs. ...Petitioners vs. Mrs.Sheela P.Sabnis since deceased per L.Rs & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.K.DHakephalkar, Sr.Adv. With Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the petitioners None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The 1 st respondent is the original defendant. A suit for eviction was filed by the petitioners in the court of Small Causes against the deceased first respondent. The ground pleaded in the suit was of bonafide requirement. After a contest, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree for possession. An appeal was preferred by the original defendant-tenant. 2 It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, original defendant-tenant died. An application was made by the legal representatives for bringing their names on record. Accordingly, the names of the respondent nos.1-a to 1-j were brought on record as legal representatives of the appellant-defendant. After the said order was passed, an application was taken out by the present 2 wp6601.sxw petitioners who are respondents in the appeal praying that 2 nd to 4 th respondents to this petition may be brought on record as legal representatives of the original defendant-appellant. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court has rejected the said application. 3 The learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the averments made by the petitioners in the application at Exh.27. He pointed out that 2 nd the 4 th respondents are claiming to be the members of the family of the deceased tenant and in fact in one of the letters written by the husband of the deceased original defendant, it was stated that for all purposes the 2 nd respondent has been his ward and that he had adopted the said 2 nd respondent. The application made by the petitioners was opposed by the respondent nos.2 to 4 by filing a reply. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners pointed out that reply does not state that the 2 nd to 4 th have no right. He submitted that the petitioners are plaintiffs and they want to ensure that the 2 nd to 4 th respondents may not obstruct the execution of the decree and therefore, the application made by the petitioners ought to have been allowed. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the application made by the petitioners at exh.27, reliance is placed on the letter dated 25 th March 1996 sent by one Prabhakar [the respondent no.1(j)] in which it was claimed that the 2 nd respondent is staying in the suit premises as a member of the family. In the reply filed to the said application by the 2 nd respondent for himself and on behalf of the 3 rd and 4 th respondents, it is contended that the tenancy stood in the name of deceased defendant Sheela Prabhakar Sabnis. 3 wp6601.sxw In the entire reply, there is no indication that the 2 nd to 4 th respondents are claiming any independent right of tenancy. Moreover, there is already a decree for possession passed against the original defendants. The 2 nd to 4 th respondents are fully aware of the decree and they have not chosen to challenge the same. If the said decree is confirmed in appeal, as rightly observed by the Appeal Bench, the said decree can be executed not only against the legal representatives who are already brought on record but also as against other family members who may claim to be residing with the deceased defendant. The Appellate Court has observed thus : 8 ...If the decree is passed, that could be executed not only against the legal representatives who are brought on record but also against the other family members who may claims to be residing with deceased defendant- tenant as if there is decree against them. In fact the respondent has no locus standi to move such application and nobody can be forced against one s wish to come on record as legal representatives of the appellant who are expected to continue the proceedings as legal representatives of the deceased... 5 As of today, there is no challenge by 2 nd to 4 th respondents to what is held by the Appeal Bench. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. 6 Hearing of the appeal is expedited. JUDGE