1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 136 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 IN B.C.C.C. SUIT NO. 3887 OF 2004 Smt. Musharat Khatoon Mohammed Yusuf & Ors. ...Petitioners (Org.defendants) Vs. Abdul Hanan Abdul Gani ...Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) Mr. Abhay S. Khandeparkar i/b.Mr. S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vasudev T. Lulia, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 1st April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Revision is filed by the original defendant No.1 and the respondent is the original plaintiff in B.C.C.C.Suit No.3887 of 2004 filed for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. To state in brief, the plaintiff is the brother of defendant No.1. The 2 plaintiff claims that he was in possession of the suit property bearing Room No.11, situated at 6, Sakina Rahmatullah Chawl Rahim Baug, Dahisar (East), Mumbai as a tenant for a long time. On 29.6.2000, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed him and taken possession of the premises. As the property is situated in slum area, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act") for permission from the Competent Authority to file a suit for eviction of the defendant No.1 and for possession of the said premises. That permission was finally granted on 16.7.1004 and on 19.8.2004, he filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act before the City Civil Court for possession. The defendant No.1 contended before the trial Court that in a family settlement, this particular house was given to her by her father and on that basis, she was in possession since 3.5.2000 and according to her, her father was a tenant in the said premises and on the basis of the said settlement, she has become a tenant and is in occupation of the premises as such. Besides this, she also contended that the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act has to be filed within six months from the date of possession and,therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, came to conclusion that suit is within limitation as it could not be filed without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority under Section 22 of the Slum Act and the suit was 3 in fact filed within six moths excluding the period taken for obtaining the said consent. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises as a tenant for long period and was forcibly dispossessed. In the result, the suit came to be decreed. That decree is challenged in the present Revision Application. 3. Section 22(1)(a) of the Slum Act clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall except with the previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority, institute any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of an occupier from any building or land in a slum area after the commencement of the Slum Act. Admittedly, the suit property is situated in the slum area and, therefore, in view of this legal provision, no suit or proceeding could be instituted without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority. Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, for which prior consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required in accordance with the law, for the time being in force, time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act provides that a person who is dispossessed from any immovable property otherwise than in accordance with due 4 course of law may, by suit recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. However under sub-section (2), no such suit would be brought after period of expiry of six months from the date of possession. Therefore, the suit for possession under Section 6 has to be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. However, in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Slum Act, the suit could not be instituted without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority. There is no dispute that on 15.7.2000, the application under Section 22 of the Slum Act was filed before the Competent Authority for permission to file a suit under Section 6. Different proceedings in that respect took long time and finally on 16.7.2004 permission was accorded under Section 22 of the Slum Act. The suit was filed on 19.8.2005. If the period from 15.7.2000 to 16.7.2000 which was taken for obtaining consent of the competent authority is excluded, the suit was within limitation of six months. 4. Coming to the merits of the case, the plaintiff not only examined himself, but also a representative of his landlord to prove that he was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. He produced rent receipts from 1.1.80 to 1.10.2000. It appears that the rent was received on behalf of the landlord by his rent collector. Same person had issued the receipts from 1.1.1980 till 1.5.1997. The rent from May 1997 to December 1999 was paid on 1.1.2000 and the 5 receipt was issued in favour of the plaintiff. The rent receipts issued from 1.1.2000 to 1.10.2000 were under signature of a different person. It appears that an attempt was made to contend that as the signatures on the receipts issued upto 1.5.1997 are different from the signatures on the receipts issued after 1.1.2000, the receipts are not reliable. In my considered opinion, that is not material because the rent collector could be a different person. It is material to note that though the defendant No.1/revision applicant had not produced any receipts issued in favour of her husband before the trial Court, the xerox copies of those receipts are produced before this Court for perusal. Incidentally, the signatures on the receipts produced by her appear to be of the same person who had signed the receipts issued to the Plaintiff from 1.10.2000 to 10.10.2000. Therefore, genuineness of the receipts cannot be disputed. Admittedly, the suit premises are different from the premises occupied by the husband of the defendant No.1 for which he had obtained rent receipts. Besides these rent receipts, from June 1981 to July 2000, all the electric bills were issued in the name of the plaintiff. The electric meter was supplied for the premises situated at 6 Sakina Rahimtulla Chawl at S.V.Road, Dahisar, Mumbai. There is no dispute about the electric bills. It is true that the room number is not mentioned on those electric bills, but there is also no dispute that the plaintiff was in occupation of only one room in the said Rahmatulla Chawl. The ration card was also standing in the name of the plaintiff with the 6 same address from 1981 onwards. 5. Taking into consideration all this material, there remains no doubt that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. According to the defendant No.1, these premises were given to her by her father in a family settlement on 2.5.2000. It shows that till before 2.5.2000, she did not claim any right of possession over this property and according to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 dispossessed him on 29.6.2000 i.e. within two months after the premises were allegedly assigned to her by her father. As her father was not tenant or owner of the premises, he could not assign the same to her. It is material to note that father had lodged a complaint on 15.9.2000 with police vide Exhibit 19 to the effect that he had not given the said premises to the defendant No.1. There was also a cross complaint by the defendant No.1 against her father for outraging her modesty. This indicates that the relations between father and daughter were strained. Taking in to consideration all these circumstances, the claim of the defendant No.1 that she was put in possession by her father is not supported by any evidence or circumstances. Anyhow, we are not concerned with the legal right, if any, in the present matter. Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession and he was dispossessed without following due process of law. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I find 7 no illegality or irregularity in the impugned Judgment and decree. Therefore, there is no substance in the present Revision Application. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application stands dismissed. C.A. No.49 of 2009 stands disposed of. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the defendant No.1/Revision Applicant seeks stay to the decree for 8 weeks. I see no justification for the same. Therefore, the request is turned down. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)