Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 1702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Tejraj Bhojraj Joshi - Appellant
Versus
Dudhkala Bhojraj Joshi - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15010 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2023
Anu Kaladharan, Advocate, Mrutyunjay Yadav, Advocate, Bharat Punekar, Advocate, Jayesh Gawde, Advocate, P.P. Pujari, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the principle that voluntary compliance with tribunal orders can resolve disputes without further litigation, while preserving the rights of parties for future claims.
Headnote:
VACATE - SENIOR CITIZENS TRIBUNAL - The court addressed the legality of an eviction order issued by the Senior Citizens Tribunal, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the rights of the petitioner. The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's commitment to vacate the premises voluntarily and continue maintenance payments, which led to the dismissal of the petition without further adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, son of respondent no.1, challenged an eviction order from the Senior Citizens Tribunal directing him to vacate his mother's premises within 120 days and to pay her Rs.1,000 monthly. The petitioner agreed to vacate by 28/2/2023 and continue payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to vacate and maintain payments, concluding that further adjudication was unnecessary as the grievance of respondent no.1 would be resolved.
Issues: Whether the eviction order from the Senior Citizens Tribunal was valid and whether the petitioner’s rights regarding the property were preserved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the petitioner’s voluntary agreement to vacate and pay maintenance addressed the concerns raised by the Senior Citizens Tribunal, thus rendering further legal proceedings unnecessary.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of in accordance with the petitioner's undertaking, with all rights regarding property inheritance preserved for future claims.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Not on board. Taken on board on a praecipe being moved on behalf of the petitioner.
2. This Court, on 6/1/2023, had passed the following order:-
<WXY>"1. Not on board. Taken on board on a praecipe being moved on behalf of the petitioner.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The petition challenges an order dtd. 7/9/2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Deputy District Officer, Senior Citizens Tribunal, Mumbai City. By the impugned order, the petitioner who is the son of respondent no.1 has been directed to vacate the premises which are claimed to be the premises of senior citizen (mother)-respondent no.1. The direction as contained in the impugned order is to the effect that the petitioner shall vacate the premises within a period of 120 days from the date of the said order passed by the tribunal. There is also a direction that the petitioner shall make payment of Rs.1, 000.00 to respondent no.1.
4. After the proceedings were heard for some time, the petitioner has taken a fair stand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall vacate the premises namely "301, IWing, Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." on or before 28/2/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file an unconditional undertaking to be placed on record of this petition, that the petitioner shall vacate the premises by such time. She states that the petitioner shall also continue to pay Rs.1, 000.00 to respondent no.1. Statement as made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted.
5. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for respondent no.1-mother has also fairly submitted that the grievance of respondent no.1 as canvassed in the proceedings before the Senior Citizens Tribunal would stand redressed in the petitioner vacating the premises and continuing to pay maintenance of Rs.1000.00 per month.
6. In these circumstances, further adjudication of the petition is not called for. It is disposed of in terms of the statement as made on behalf of the petitioner as noted above.
7. Needless to observe that all rights and contentions of the petitioner to assert any claim in respect of the said property based on inheritance are expressly kept open. All contentions of the petitioner in S.C. Suit (Stamp) No.4078 of 2021 and of the defendants therein are expressly kept open.
8. Let the undertaking of the petitioner be placed on record within one week from today, with a copy of the same to be furnished to the advocate for respondent no.1. 9. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall take all precautions and shall not cause any further inconvenience, harassment whatsoever to respondent no.1.
10. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs."</WXY>
3. However, it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that today the concerned department nonetheless has executed the impugned orders passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal and has evicted the petitioner, despite this Court having categorically recording a statement on behalf of the petitioner that he would vacate the premises on or before 28/2/2023 and the same was agreed on behalf of the contesting respondent being respondent no.1.
4. It is her submission that the petitioner is evicted with all his belongings who is now standing outside the premises. It clearly appears that such action on the part of official authorities apart from being duly hasty appears to be in breach of the above order passed by this Court. The concerned officers are immediately required to restore the possession of the petitioner who shall abide by the orders passed by this Court on 6/1/2023.
5. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the officers were also in fact informed of the above order passed by this Court on 6/1/2023, and that the order was not available as the same was yet to be loaded. In these circumstances, respondent no.2 shall inquire into the conduct of the concerned officers who have u
