4.cra.113-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.113 OF 2010 Smt.Deomani Pandurang Chari. ..Applicant. Versus Mrs.Renu w/o. Ajay S. Khanna and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.Mohan B. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 05, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time and the present matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. It is a dispute with respect to certain hut, allegedly given on leave and licence to the present respondents (orig.plaintiffs) by the present revision applicant (orig.defenant). A sort of understanding was arrived at between the parties, by which, admittedly, an amount of Rs.75,000/- was given to the defendant and on that consideration the plaintiffs were allowed to reside in the premises on leave and licence basis. Subsequently part of that money was refunded by the 4.cra.113-10 2 defendant to the plaintiffs and an amount of Rs.40,000/- remained to be paid. However, according to the defendant entire amount has been paid and infact though such writing was executed, in fact, actual physical possession of the hut was not given back to the defendant. 3. A Suit for declaration as tenants with respect to the said hut was filed by the present respondents(orig.plaintiffs). Initially ad-interim relief was granted, however during pendency of the suit, plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendant, as claimed by the plaintiffs, and they preferred an application for restoration. The same came to be dismissed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Division Bench of Small Causes Court. By order dated 18th December, 2009, the Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the appeal and the order of the trial Court dated 30th November, 2007 in RAD Suit No.104 of 2007 below Exhibit-10 was set aside. Defendant was directed to restore the possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of the order. This is the order, which is challenged in the present Civil Revision Application by original defendant. Initially 4.cra.113-10 3 interim relief was granted by this Court staying the order of the direction to restore the possession of the suit hut to the plaintiffs. 4. After hearing rival submissions, it would be in the fitness of the situation to give specific directions to the Small Causes Court before which the RAD Suit No.104 OF 2007 is still pending, to dispose of the said matter on merits after hearing rival parties and preferably within a period of six months from today. In the meantime, the present position, so far as the suit hut is concerned is required to be maintained and to that effect the order impugned in the present Civil Revision Application is set aside. Needless to mention that the Small Causes Court which is seized of the RAD Suit No.104 of 2007 shall dispose of the Suit within the stipulated time according to law and without being influenced by the observations of the Bench of the Small Causes Court or any of the observations in the present order. All contentions of rival parties are kept open. R & P be sent back to the concerned Small Causes Court for compliance of the present order. With these directions, the present Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed off. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)