JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:—Will this Court turn a Nelson's eye to a class of litigation that is unnecessarily throttling the functioning of the justice dispensation system which itself is groaning under unbearable arrears and virtually gasping for breath? For too long has it been the order of the day in and around the city of Bombay, particularly for persons in unjustified occupation of premises, to litigate virtually for decades together and use this time period as an umbrella for continuation of such illegal activities. Pendency of a litigations, based on such claims invariably couched in a veneer of profoundness, are used as the justification for such wrongful retention of the premises, thereby defeating the possessory rights of the owner. In the process, it is the courts at whom an accusing finger is pointed as the institutions that have permitted this state of affairs to flourish. The modus operandi, invariably, is the institution of one or more litigations and the filing of appeals therefrom, or the starting of parallel proceedings when one of them has failed. The present petition before me is an even more classic illustration of how judicial process is sought to be used as a cover for the perpetuation of such a situation where the solitary plea canvassed is that de hors the merits of the case or for that matter, even the ethics involved, the proceeding started in one Court in 1989 should be dismissed, and that it should be commenced in another Court. Issue of jurisdiction canvassed in this case, in view of its far-reaching consequences in numerous proceedings of such types, requires to be decided on merits, since it has been agitated with some degree of vehemence. An application having been presented before me by the respondent-company containing a grievance that the petitioner has been refusing to restore possession of valuable residential premises, occupation of which was permitted to him while an employee of the Company, which status had ceased since the middle of the year 1986, it did appear necessary that this petition, which has come up to the High Court at an interlocutory stage, requires immediate disposal. Inter alia, the Company contended that whereas it is required to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the original owner of the premises, that the petitioner-ex-employee has been occupying the premises after resigning from the services of the Company, for the last 5½ years without having paid a single rupee. The Company had instituted recovery proceedings before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in 1989. The petitioner-ex-employee filed this petition contending that the City Civil Court and not the Court of Small Causes was the proper forum, and the petition having been admitted, pending proceedings have been stayed and the petitioner continues in occupation, free of charge for several years to come. The facts appear gross and in order to prevent the continuation of this unsatisfactory state of affairs, the petition was taken up for hearing forth with.

2. The petitioner before me, Mr. G.A.Talwar, is and ex-Executive of the respondent, M/s Rallis India Ltd., a large and well-established public limited Company at Bombay. The Company had acquired in January 1972 from the landlord, Flat No. 35 in Venus Apartments at Worli Sea face, Bombay, together with a garage attached to the premises. Over the years, the Company appears to have been accepted as a tenant in respect of the premises and the rent payable thereof was mutually increased from time to time until it reached a sum of Rs. 1,600/- per month excluding the society's bills, which come to about Rs. 550/- per month on an average. Apart from this, the Company has also been asking certain payments towards repairs, etc. This flat was acquired by the Company for purposes of providing residential accommodation to its officers.

3. The petitioner before me was appointed on 15-6-1973 as a management trainee and absorbed in the managerial cadre with effect f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document