IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3020/2008 Bhagubai Parmar & Ors. .....Petitioners Vs. M/s Gala Builders ....Respondnent Coram : A.A.Sayed,J. Date : 29th April,2008 Adv.Ms.F.D.Contractor for the Petitioner Adv.Shri.R.A.Thorat for the Respondent P.C. 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally . 2] This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24- 3- 2008 passed by the Appellate Court of Small Causes, which arose from an Obstructionist notice. 3] The Appeal o.256/07 ,which was summarily dismissed by the aforesaid impugned order dated 24-03-08 ,was directed against the order passed by the Trial Court in Obstructionist Notice No.36/07 in RAE Suit No.665/1605/1993 ,by which order , the Obstructionist 2 Notice was made absolute. 4] The Petitioners, who claim to be protected licensees of the original deceased tenant, had obstructed the decree dated 07-03-07 passed in favour of the Respondent in the RAE Suit No.665/1605/1993 . When this suit was pending, one of the present petitioners made an application to permit him to file Written Statement which was allowed by the Trial Court; however the same was challenged in Revision by the Respondent , which revision came to be allowed and that order was set aside and he was thus not permitted to file the Written Statement as the said petitioner was not a party to the suit. Pertinently, no Application, was made by any of the Petitioners herein, who are close relatives, to be added as party defendant to the said RAE Suit and ultimately, the decree came to be passed on 07-03-07 . 5] The Petitioners had filed a declaratory suit,being RAD Suit No.511 of 1994 which came to be dismissed. The Appeal filed therefrom,being Appeal No.304 of 2000 also met the same fate. No further proceedings were filed therefrom. The Petitioners were thus unsuccessful in their attempt to get themselves declared to be the tenants of the suit premises. 6] It is contended that since the Petitioners were not parties to 3 the RAE suit of the Respondents, the decree was not binding on them and that the decree passed is without jurisdiction. 7] I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned order. The plea of the Petitioners that they are the monthly tenants has been rejected in a substantive suit and the appeal filed therefrom is also rejected. So far as obstruction is concerned, both the Courts below have held against the Petitioners. Admittedly, the decree is executed and the Petitioners are no more in possession of the suit premises. The Petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference of the impugned order so as to set aside the same in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8] Consequently the petition is dismissed. Rule Discharged. No costs. (Judge)