JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the orders dated February 7, 1987 and July 7, 1987 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 414 of 1986 and in Misc. Notice No. 204 of 1987 in R.A.E. Suit No. 3043 of 1983, respectively.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioners are the landlords in respect of the premises being Room No. 2, Ground Floor, Harihar Nivas, Dr. B.A. Road, Dadar, Bombay- 400 014. The husband of the respondent No. 1 herein was the monthly tenant in the said premises. After his demise, his wife-respondent No. 1 herein continued to occupy the suit premises. According to the petitioners, since the respondent No. 1 had shifted to Jabalpur and was keeping the demised premises closed, a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Rent Act") came to be filed against the respondent No. 1 being R.A.E. Suit No. 3043 of 1983 on the grounds of non-user, acquisition of suitable residence and also bona fide requirement. The said suit was filed on 29th July, 1983. The Rent Court issued summons to the respondent No. 1 regarding the hearing of that suit, which was not only attempted to be served on the suit premises at Bombay but also on the last known address of the respondent No. 1 at Jabalpur. However, the packet sent through Court containing the suit summons by R.P.A.D. was returned with an endorsement dated 24-8-1983 as "Refused. I am not the L.R. of Mr. Morrie Chatterji". Since the said service could not be effected, another attempt through the Court Bailiff to serve on the respondent No. 1 on the suit premises on 14th October, 1983 and 16th October, 1983 were made and on both the occasions the premises were found locked. The bailiff, accordingly, made his report in that behalf. In these peculiar circumstances, the petitioners made application to the Court for substituted service. The Rent Court although allowed the said application, by order dated 21st October, 1983, out of abundant precaution also directed the petitioners to serve the respondent No. 1 by R.P.A.D. as well as under certificate of posting. The order passed by the trial Court is "service is prayed if it could not be served on the defendant and alia once again by R.P.A.D. and certificate of posting at Jabalpur address". Pursuant to the directions given by the Rent Court, the summons through R.P.A.D. as well as under certificate of posting was sent to the respondent No. 1 at her Jabalpur address. The summons sent by R.P.A.D. was however returned with endorsement dated 18-11-1983 as: "Refused. The undersigned is not the wife of Shri Morrie Chatterji". It is relevant to note that on both the postal remarks, referred to above, the signature of one "M. Chatterji" has been put. Besides, the service by R.P.A.D. and certificate of posting, even the substituted service was effected and the summons was posted by the bailiff on the suit premises and the report in that behalf was submitted to the Court dated 28th November, 1983. The suit was placed for hearing before the Rent Court on 15th December, 1984 on which date, once again none appeared for respondent No. 1. The trial Court, in the circumstances recorded that the suit summons was duly served and the matter be posted for ex parte decree on 21st December 1984 when the petitioners led evidence and on analysing the pleadings and evidence on record, the trial Court proceeded to pass ex parte decree of possession of the grounds stated in the plaint. That decree was executed by the petitioners on 13th February, 1985. Only after the decree was executed and the petitioners had also obtained the possession. Mr. Ramraj Nahata, claiming to be the son-in-law of respondent No. 1, filed Special Misc. Notice No. 160 of 1985 on 16th February, 1985 for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the affidavit filed in support of that application b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document