1 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9103 of 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachharaj Hemani (ii)Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii)Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners versus (i) Mrs.Meenaben Devendra Unakar (ii)Dr.Umesh G. Oza (iii)Manoj G. Oza ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9116 of 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachharaj Hemani (ii) Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii) Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners versus (i)Mrs.Ramaben G. Raichura ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9117 of 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachharaj Hemani (ii)Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii)Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners versus (i) Mrs.Champaben Asharam Mishra (ii)Mr.Chhotalal Asharam Mishra (iii)Mrs.Nirmala Asharam Mishra ... Respondents 2 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9118 of 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachhaaj Hemani (ii)Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii)Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. .... Petitioners versus (i) Tenneco Investment & Trading Co.Ltd.... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9187 of 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachharaj Hemani (ii)Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii)Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners versus (i) Prakash Chamanlal Parekh .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9267 OF 2010 (i) Dhirajlal Vachharaj Hemani (ii)Mrs.Sarayu Dhirajlal Hemani (iii)Mega Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners versus (i) Prabhudas Chhaganlal Raichura .... Respondent ... 3 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b LJ Law for the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Mr. Ketan Parekh with Kunjal Sanghavi i/b K.R. Parekh & Co. for respondents in WP Nos. 9103/10, 9116/10, 9118/10 and 9187/10 except for respondent no.2 in WP no.9117/10 Mr. Y.R. Dube for respondent no.2 in WP no.9117/10 and respondent in WP no.9267/10. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 19th January 2011. P.C. 1. Rule in each of the writ petitions. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respective waive service. Heard. 2. Petitioner in all the writ petitions is the landlord of a building known as “Hemani Niwas”. Respondents in each of the petitions are tenants occupying different parts of the Hemani Niwas. Petitioner filed separate suits being R.A.E. Suit Nos. 537/1016/2008, 538/1017/2008, 597/1018/2008, 540/1019/2008, 565/1057/2008, and 11/15/2009 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai for possession against the respondents tenants. The suits are ready and are all placed for hearing before the Court No.32 in the Small Causes Court at Bandra. When the suits came up for hearing before the court, the petitioner made an 4 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 application in each of the suits for combining and/or consolidating the suits and hearing them together. The application was resisted by the respondents and the applications were rejected. Orders rejecting the request are impugned in these writ petitions. 3. All the suits have been filed for eviction only on the ground under section 16(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act i.e the landlord requires the suit premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building in its place. In each of the suits, the landlord has given a necessary undertaking for carrying out the reconstruction and accommodating the tenants in the new construction. According to the petitioner, he has complied with all requirements of law, has obtained the necessary funds for construction of a new building and also has a necessary building for construction of a new building. Since the entire building is to be demolished and entire construction has to be carried out in one phase, it would not be possible to carry out the construction unless the petitioner recovers possession from all the tenants. It is therefore necessary that suits against all the tenants should be heard together. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the suits are not heard together, there is a possibility of conflicting decisions and if the decisions are conflicting, it would not be possible for him to carry out the construction until he recovers possession of the premises from all the tenants. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that all suits be heard together. 5 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though all the suits can be heard simultaneously, they cannot be consolidated inasmuch because different advocates are representing different tenants and each of them would have right of separate cross examination. In my view, the difficulty expressed by the counsel for the respondents can be solved by passing an order directing the plaintiff to file common affidavits of evidence of himself and his witnesses if any in all the matters with liberty to the respondents to cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses separately. Such a course would be eminently just as it would save the time of the court. Hence, I pass the following order. 5. The impugned order is set aside and is substituted by the following order. 6. All the suits shall be heard one after the other. Plaintiff shall be allowed to adduce common evidence in all suits i.e to say that he shall file common affidavit of examination in chief of himself and all his witnesses. Evidence shall be filed in R.A.E. Suit No. 537/1016/2008 and copies of the affidavits shall be kept on record in each of the suits. The defendants in each of the suits shall be allowed to cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses and copies of the cross examination by all the defendants shall be kept in records of all the suits. Defendants shall be permitted to file 6 WP 9103,9116, 9117,9118 & 9187 of 2010 separate affidavits in respect of their evidence (i.e of themselves and their witnesses) separately in each of of the suits and plaintiff shall be permitted to cross examine the defendants and their witnesses in each of the suits. Oral and documentary evidence which may be filed by the parties in each of the suits shall be looked into in all the suits under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court shall, if it is so convenient, be free to pass a common judgment in respect of all the suits. (D.G.KARNIK, J)