SSK/ 1 WP/2528.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2528 OF 2011 Shri Shashank K. Donde & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Prabha Moghe & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Atul G. Damle, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C. T. Kriplani, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The respondents are the owners of the suit property. One M/s. Saviles (P) Ltd., a private company was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. The predecessor in title of the respondents initiated proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act for possession of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement. The suit was decreed and this decree is confirmed up to the High Court in Civil Revision Application No.52 of 2009. SSK/ 2 WP/2528.11 3. The petitioners had filed a suit against the predecessor-in-title of the respondents and the said private ltd. company for declaration that they are the tenants of the suit premises. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that Krishnanath Vasudeo Donde, father of the petitioners was the employee of the said private ltd. company. The respondents contested the petitioners’ suit on the ground that the said private ltd. company was the tenant and the petitioners are not the tenants. The petitioners are in possession in view of their father’s employment with the said private ltd. company. The petitioners’ suit was dismissed by the trial court and their appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate court. The petitioners preferred Civil Revision Application No.53 of 2009. This Civil Revision Application was disposed of by Order dated 21st April, 2009. By the said order, the lower court’s judgment and decree was modified to the extent that the petitioners’ suit for declaration that they are the tenants of the demised premises was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 4. The respondents, thereafter, put the decree obtained against the said private ltd. company for execution. The respondents filed an application for issuance of fresh warrant of possession against any person whomsoever found in occupation of the said suit premises. This execution was obstructed by the petitioners, therefore, respondents were constrained to take application for removal of obstruction. The Trial Court rejected the SSK/ 3 WP/2528.11 respondents prayer for issuance of fresh warrant and granted liberty to the petitioners/obstructionists to file reply. Hearing of the obstructionist notice was expedited. This order was challenged in an appeal filed by the respondents. By order dated 24th February, 2011, the appeal was allowed in favour of the respondents, and therefore, the present writ petition. 5. There is no dispute about the eviction decree passed against the said private ltd. company. The fact that the petitioners came in possession of the suit premises through the said private ltd. company is also not disputed. The petitioners, however, filed an independent suit for declaration that they are the tenants of the respondents. This suit was dismissed after giving an opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence on the ground that there is no relation of tenant and landlord between the petitioners and predecessor in title of the respondents, and therefore, Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. This finding is confirmed by this Court by Order dated 21st April, 2009 in Civil Revision Application No.53 of 2009. I have perused the petitioners’ affidavit in obstructionist notice. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the said affidavit discloses that the petitioners are claiming to be tenants of the respondents and are claiming tenancy rights in the suit premises. The issue of relationship between the petitioners and respondents is already concluded. The petitioners are held not to be the tenants of the respondents. The petitioners cannot again agitate this issue SSK/ 4 WP/2528.11 and contend that they are the tenants of the respondents. In my view, in the aforesaid circumstances, no purpose will be served by granting liberty to the petitioners to lead evidence in the obstructionist notice. The respondents are the owners. The 1st respondent is a senior citizen and is 80 years old. She is entitled to have the fruits of the decree which was passed long back and confirmed by this Court. The petitioners want to protract the proceedings so as to remain in possession of the suit premises indefinitely. This should not be permitted. Taking over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Damle seeks continuation of the ad-interim relief for a period of four weeks. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, in the interest of justice and in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Higher Court, three weeks’ time deserves to be granted. Accordingly, the interim order passed earlier is continued for a period of three weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)