1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.655 OF 2002 Shri Palji Kala Jogadia ...Appellant. v. Shri Baba Singh Markandey & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Sandeep Jinsiwale, adv. For the Appellant. Mr. Vachan Bodke i/by M/s. Chitnis Vaithy & Co.,adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Smt. A.A.Mane, AGP for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 The appellant claims that he was working as a sweeper with an establishment having six buildings and as such, he was occupying a shed between building no.3 and 5 of Manaji Rajuji Chawls, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai since 1979 or so with permission of landlords of those buildings. The appellant himself is working as sweeper in K.E.M.Hospital run by the Municipal Corporation. According to him, his wife was doing sweeping and cleaning job in the said buildings. He had also ration card of the same premises. He was also given identity card by the Election Commission. 2 According to him in 1994 , respondent no.1 handed over him keys of the room in transit camp no.5, Building No.4B, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (West) to the appellant and accordingly, he shifted there. According to the appellant, sometimes in March, 1995, respondent no.1, who is the trustee of the said Trust, landlord of the chawl approached the appellant and told him that the landlord of the trust had lost the case against the MHADA and keys of the room in transit camp were required to be returned to MHADA. In these circumstances, the appellant filed Short Cause Suit No.1966/95 seeking declaration that he was lawful occupier of the said shed consisting of two rooms in the compound of building no. 3 & 5 of Manaji Rajuji Chawl and he is entitled to get permanent alternative accommodation in the newly constructed building. Respondents disputed the claim of the appellant by filing the written statement. After hearing the evidence for the parties, suit came to be dismissed therefore, this is the first appeal. 3 Normally First Appeal is admitted, however, in the present case, I find that the appellant has not made out even a prima- facie case to support his claim. Even though he had produced ration card purported to have been issued to him in 1988, trial Court noted that address of Manaji Rajuji Chawl, Lower Parel, was actually scribbled on 3 a separate piece of paper, which was affixed to the original ration card. Genuineness of that address was also doubted. Nobody from the rationing authority was called to prove that he was holding ration card of that address. It was also contested that after he had vacated the shed, he was occupying room in transit camp at Kandivali and, therefore, on the ration card, Kandivali address was noted. The appellant admitted that there was no order allotting him any room in the transit camp at Kandivali. As per the written statement filed by MHADA, said room in the transit camp was actually allotted to the defendant/respondent no.2 and the appellant was unauthorised occupant of that room. The appellant contended that rent controller of Manaji Rajuji chawls had given keys to him for which there is no documentary evidence except the oral statement of the appellant. As the said building nos.3 and 5 were cessed buildings, MHADA had undertaken re-development of the same. Therefore, tenants occupying rooms in that chawl were to be provided transit accommodation in some other buildings of MHADA and that was done. Admittedly, the appellant was not one of the tenants occupying any room in the said buildings. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is document to show that there was C-I shed between the building nos.3 and 5 of the said buildings and as per that 4 document, for the year 1990-91, said shed was assessed for the property tax by the Municipal Corporation. Even if it is so, that does not prove that the appellant was occupying the said shed. There is no reference to the occupation of the present appellant in that assessment order. Taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant had failed to prove any claim that he was occupant of the said shed and he is entitled to any permanent alternative accommodation. 4 There is no substance in the claim of the appellant and, therefore, this appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)