IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1484 OF 2009 Haroon Haji Adambhai, Since deceased by his legal representatives: 1. Musa Haroon Musani & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Hafiz Mohamed Nooah & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr.A.S.Uraizee for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 12, 2009. MARCH 12, 2009. MARCH 12, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. According to the Petitioners, the Court below has clearly overlooked the efficacy of the order dated 30th January 1990 passed in Notice of Motion No.6320 in S.C.Suit No.2814 of 1972 whereby the Respondent No.1 came to be dispossessed for the reasons recorded therein. The consequence of such : 2 : dispossession is that the Respondent No.1 ceased to be tenant in respect of the suit premises. It is not possible to countenance this submission. The Respondent No.1 was dispossessed on account of breach of condition imposed by the Court Receiver, in view of the fact that he was acting as the agent of the Court Receiver. That does not mean that the tenancy rights of the Respondent No.1 ceased to exist. In a Suit between two family members, the tenancy in respect of the suit premises in favour of the third party cannot be terminated or determined in this manner. More over, what has been overlooked by the Petitioners is the order dated 7th November 1990 passed in Notice of Motion No.2611 of 1990 at the instance of Respondent No.1. By that order, the Respondent No.1 was directed to be put back in possession of the suit premises and continued to occupy the same as agent of the Court Receiver. The Court below has rightly termed this order in the nature of restitution of the Respondent No.1 in the suit premises. 3. Viewed thus, no fault can be found with the order impugned in this Petition to the extent : 3 : of clause (1) of the operative order whereby, the lower Court has decreed the Suit in terms of the Consent Terms except Clause (7) thereof. If Clause (7) was to be retained, the effect would be that the Respondent No.1 would be dispossessed from the suit premises notwithstanding the fact that there is no decree of eviction passed against the Respondent No.1 by any Court of competent jurisdiction so far. 4. The argument of the Petitioners that the Respondent No.1 is not a tenant, clearly overlooks the admission in Para 3 of the affidavit filed at the earlier stage. 5. Accordingly, taking overall view of the matter, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.