IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8256 OF 2009 Taru Kirti Shah ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Bai Prabhadevi Haridas Bhatia (deceased) Charulata Jamna Das Bhatia & Ors. ..... ..... .Respondents. Ms.Archana Patil i/by M/s.Jurists UNO Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.C.J.Bhatia-Respondent No.3-in-person. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 10th December, 2009. PC: The present respondents instituted a suit for ejectment and possession against one Navinchandra Shivlal Vyas being the tenant of the plaintiff in the premises. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who were in possession of the premises were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No.2 is a partnership firm by name Vimal Trading Company whereas defendant No.3 is one Kirit Shah who happens to be the husband of the present petitioner. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein and against the defendants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree an appeal was preferred. However the appeal as well came to be dismissed as the appellate court concurred with the view taken by the trial court. Against the said judgment and decree a petition was filed in the High Court and the same also came to be dismissed. It is thus clear that the decree passed in favour of the present respondents attained finality and hence respondents are entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises. The respondents took out possession warrant and when they tried to execute the same they came to be obstructed by the present petitioner who is wife of original defendant No.3. The obstructionist claimed that 1 Smt.Vasantiben R.Gajaria and Smt.Bhavana J. Asher who are allegedly the grand daughters of deceased P.H.Bhatia the owner are land ladies of the suit premises It is further contended by the petitioner that she was inducted in the suit premises and put in exclusive possession thereof by defendant No.1-Navinchandra Vyas on 1.9.1972 under leave and licence agreement. The trial court accepted the case of the present petitioner that she is in possession of the suit premises in her independent right and thus dismissed the application moved by landlords under order 21 rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure for removal of obstruction. However the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court has reversed the said order allowing the application moved by the decree holder and directed the obstruction to be removed. It is this order which is challenged by filing the present writ petition. What is relevant to note is that in the suit filed by plaintiffs defendant No.1 (the tenant) admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of the suit premises. The present petitioner is claiming a right through the original defendant No.1 and thus the first appellate court has rightly held that the obstructionist has no independent right but she is claiming right through defendant No.1 who is one of the judgment-debtors. I am in agreement with the said finding recorded by the appellate court that as the petitioner is claiming through the original defendant No.1 she has no independent right and the admission of the defendant No.1 about plaintiffs being owners and landlords would bind the present petitioner as well. She cannot be permitted to set up title in some one else when the original tenant admits the ownership of the plaintiffs and their status as landlords. 2. In so far as the case of the petitioner about she being in exclusive possession of the suit premises under leave and licence agreement 2 dated 1.9.72 allegedly executed by original defendant No.1 in her favour. Suffice it to state that the said document was never placed on record of the court. The petitioner did not examine herself as a witness. However her husband who happens to be defendant No.3 in the original suit has been examined as a witness for the petitioner- obstructionist. The first appellate court has taken into consideration entire evidence and material on record while reaching the conclusion that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that she has been in exclusive continuous possession of the suit premises under leave and licence agreement dated 1.9.72. As the petitioner has failed to establish that she was inducted as licensee on 1.9.72 it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to the protection under section 15A of the Rent Act. Perused the impugned order. Same does not suffer from any illegality requiring any interference with the order impugned. 3. It has then come on record that the present petitioner had instituted a RAD Suit No.721/05 copy of the plaint whereof has not been placed on record. However it can be seen from the order passed by court below that in the said suit petitioner had taken out notice of motion for temporary injunction against the present respondents seeking to restrain them from executing the decree for eviction and possession and the said application was rejected. Respondent No.3 who appears in person makes a statement that the said suit has been withdrawn which statement is not disputed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the orders passed in the said suit do not have any bearing on adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ petition. Hence writ petition stands dismissed. 3