1 A.O. 930 of 2011 with CAA 1245 of 2011 (904) saj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 930 OF 2011 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1245 OF 2011 with CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.20733 of 2011 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.453 OF 2011 Mr. Bernard Aranjo .. Appellant V/s. Mrs. Philomena Rasquinha & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shriram Kulkarni a/w &i/by Mrs. Vrishali R Raje for the Appellant. Mr. M.S.Menon a/w Mr.A.A.Siddhique for Respondents. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23RD AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. The Appellant is the original Defendant. He is brother of the Respondent No.1 who was the original Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alongwith his father were joint tenants in respect of suit premises. The suit premises was in a chawl. It was later developed and reconstructed into a tenament. The joint tenancy of the Plaintiff and father continued. 2. The father expired on 17.05.1990. The Defendant was 2 A.O. 930 of 2011 with CAA 1245 of 2011 (904) residing in Dubai with his family. 3. The Appellant claims that he was in possession of the suit premises alongwith his sister. That position has not been prima facie shown. The Appellant has produced returns of Income-tax and his passport in which he has given suit address. Interestingly, his passport has been got renewed directly from Dubai. The Appellant may have had no other address in India. Merely giving his address at the tenanted premises of his father and sister cannot show his actual possession. The Appellant has not produced any authenticate address proof. 4. The Appellant claims that he was paying rents. No rent receipt was produced. 5. The learned Judge considered the documentary evidence as well as the lack of it. The learned Judge concluded that the possession, as claimed by the Defendant was not proved. 6. The tenancy was joint. The Counsel on behalf of the Defendant relies upon Section 7 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act to contend that he was a family member living with the deceased tenant at the time of the death of tenant, and as such he was to be entitled to the tenancy. This said provision applies only in case of tenancy which was in the name of the deceased tenant alone. It cannot apply to a joint tenancy. 3 A.O. 930 of 2011 with CAA 1245 of 2011 (904) Upon the death of one of the joint tenants, the other tenant, who was also the tenant, would become the only tenant. The tenancy would continue in his/her name alone thereafter until he/she died when Section 7 becomes applicable to his/her heirs living with him/her at the time of his/her death. 7. Interestingly, though the father died in 1990, no application for declaration of the tenancy has been made by the Appellant for the last two decades. 8. The Appellant is stated to have been residing in Pune. One intrinsic aspect which the Plaintiff/Respondent has pointed out is what the learned Judge has considered with regard to the permanent residence of the Appellant in Pune. The affidavit in reply filed in the trial Court is by the Constituted Attorney on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant who also resides in Pune. The learned Judge has rightly considered, therefore, that the Plaintiff’s contention would be true. 9. The Defendant contended that the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction and that the rent court has jurisdiction and sought to lead evidence. The Court has considered the admitted facts between the parties with regard to the tenancy and evidence of possession produced by the Defendant/Appellant himself and has decided the application challenging its inherent jurisdiction. 4 A.O. 930 of 2011 with CAA 1245 of 2011 (904) 10.The relationship between the parties is admitted. The fact that the tenancy was in joint names was also admitted. Section 7 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to the sole tenant and not to joint tenancy. As per the law of the joint tenancy, two names of the tenants : the deceased tenant as well as his daughter itself brings the case out of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. No further evidence is necessary to be led on facts with regard to the Courts’ inherent jurisdiction. 11.The Civil Suit filed by the Plaintiff is only for injunction restraining the entry of the Defendant and his family members. The Civil Court has inherent jurisdiction to decide such a suit. The interim application is correctly decided. The joint tenancy coupled with the possession of the Plaintiff, which has not been disputed requires the Plaintiff to be given the protection sought. The total lack of evidence of tenancy, payment of rent or possession in the suit premises as well as the residence of the Appellant in Dubai and Pune, shows lack of any case of the possession of the Appellant the suit premises. 12.Both orders are correct and do not require any interference. They are confirmed. The order of interim stay, if any, in force in this Appeal shall continue for a period of six weeks. The 5 A.O. 930 of 2011 with CAA 1245 of 2011 (904) Appellant/Defendant shall give notice of any application to be moved before the Apex Court or any other Court to the Respondent. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)