1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.395 OF 2007 Jayashree Balkrishna Kande ..Applicant V/s. Santoshkumar Mahanlal Lodha & ors ..Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil, advocate, for applicant Mr.Mandar Limaye h/f.Mr.N.R.Bubna, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the copies of the documents filed with the original application. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the landlords of the suit premises bearing room No.34 which is a part of Municipal House No.1164 situated at Survey No.157/C within limits of Taluka Nandgaon. They had filed Regular Civil Suit No.40 of 1988 against respondent No.4, Vijay Nanaji Pawar for eviction and possession on the ground that 2 respondent No.4 Vijay Nanaji Pawar was a tenant in the said house. He contested the suit. The suit came to be decreed on 2nd September, 1994. Thereafter, Regular Darkhast No.11 of 2005 came to be filed for execution of the Judgment and Decree. The present applicant also filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2005 seeking a declaration that she is a tenant in the suit premises. She also sought temporary injunction. That application came to be rejected. Her Appeal No.49 of 2005 against rejection of that application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application “Exh.13” in Regular Darkhast No.11 of 2005 making the request to implead her as a party. That application was also rejected. Against that order she preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.51 of 2005. That appeal also came to be rejected. Against rejection of her application to implead her as a party in the execution proceedings and against dismissal of her appeal she has preferred the present application. 3. According to the applicant, she is 3 living in the suit premises as a tenant of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 since 1980. She married respondent No.4 in the year 1992. In the year 2000, divorce took place between the parties and therefore, now the applicant alone is living in the suit premises. She contended that she has number of documents to prove that she is a tenant and in exclusive use and possession of the suit premises. The contention of the applicant is that the suit was filed in the year 1988 against respondent No.4 in collusion with him and that it was known to the parties that respondent No.4 was not a tenant. It is impossible to believe that in the year 1988, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 could imagine that in the year 1992 respondent No.4 would marry the present applicant and with that imagination they could file the suit against the present applicant. As pointed out earlier, the applicant has also filed a suit for a declaration of her right as a tenant but she failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction and therefore, her application was rejected and even, her appeal was dismissed. 4 4. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the Courts below have noted that the present applicant had produced a bunch of 31 documents to support her claim. According to him, the documents have not been properly considered by the Courts below. It may be noted that the Courts below observed that not a single document out of the produced documents corroborates the plea of the present applicant. I have carefully perused the copies of the documents which were relied upon by the applicant. Not a single document pertains to the suit premises. Some of the documents of the year 1985, 1987, 1989 & 1990 appear to be the receipts about payment of taxes or water charges to the Municipal Council. Those documents are pertaining to the different property and not to the suit premises. Not a single document relied upon by the applicant goes to show that the applicant was a tenant or occupant of the suit premises. The learned Courts below noted that if after marriage, in the year 1992, the applicant was residing with her husband/respondent No.4 that does not give her a right as tenant in her individual capacity. She 5 could live in the house as a wife and a member of family of respondent No.4. When the decree of eviction is already passed against respondent No.4, his wife cannot claim to be impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings. 5. After going through record and the documents, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the Courts below. I do not find any merit in the present case. 6. Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)