IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in eviction proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act, the landlord's title is irrelevant; only the landlord-tenant relationship needs to be proven.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The Applicant/original Defendant has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 3 May 2019 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, by which Appeal No. 245 of 2008 filed by Respondents/Plaintiffs has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 4 February 2018 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court in RAE & R Suit No. 46/83 of 1992 is set aside. The Appellant Bench has decreed RAE & R Suit No. 46/83 of 1992 directing the Applicant/Defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the Respondents/Plaintiffs with further direction to pay Rs. 3,600/- towards arrears of rent alongwith 15% simple interest.

2. Brief facts, necessary for decision of the Civil Revision Application can be summarized as follows:

Respondents/Plaintiffs instituted RAE & R Suit No. 46/83 of 1992 against Applicant/original Defendant Shri Kashinath R. Kolwankar for recovery of possession of suit premises being Flat No. F-2 on ground floor of building Dulaba Prasad, Plot No. 60-D and 60-F, S. Jadhav Marg, Naigaon, Mumbai-400014 (Suit Premises). It is the case of Respondents/Plaintiffs in the Plaint that late Shri Ramakant B. Desai and his mother Smt. Shantabai Desai purchased Plot Nos.60-D and 60-F from M/s. Sant Brothers, who were original promoter members of Naigaon Co- operative Housing Society Limited. The purchase took place in the year 1953 at consideration of Rs.70/- per square yard. That Plot No. 60-D stood in the name of Shri Ramakant B. Desai and Plot No. 60-F stood in the name of Smt. Shantabai Desai. That Shri Ramakant B. Desai constructed building named ‘Dulaba Prasad’ on Plot Nos.60-D and 60-F by appointing Architect and Contractor. That the entire expenditure for construction of the building was borne by said Shri Ramakant B. Desai. The construction of the building was complete in January 1955 trough the contractor by Shri Ramakant B. Desai, who thereafter created tenancies in respect of various flats constructed in the said building. That said Shri Ramakant B. Desai himself stayed alongwith family members on second floor of the building during 1955 to 1986. That additional third floor of the building was later constructed by Shri Ramakant B. Desai at his own costs in the year 1981, which was complete by the year 1986. That Shri Ramakant B. Desai shifted from second floor to the third floor and created fresh tenancies in respect of second floor during the years 1986 to 1988. It is further averred in the Plaint that Shri Ramakant B. Desai became landlord in respect of various flats constructed in the building ‘Dulaba Prasad’. That the Applicant/original Defendant Kashinath Kolwankar was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit premises.

3. Plaintiffs further averted that Naigaon Co-operative Housing Society Limited (the Society) did not contribute anything for construction of the building at any point of time nor objected to construction of the building and induction of the tenants by Shri Ramakant B. Desai. It appears that various tenants allegedly inducted by Shri Ramakant B. Desai made applications to the Society for for admitting them as members. The said occupants of the flats filed proceedings before Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies seeking their admission as members of Society. The Assistant Registrar passed order dated 9 November 1987 allowing the applications of occupants and directed that the said occupants be made ordinary members of Naigaon Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The said order dated 9 November 1987 passed by the Assistant Registrar was challenged before Divisional Joint Registrar both by the Society as well as Shri Ramakant B. Desai. The Divisional Joint Registrar however rejected the Revision Applications by order dated 29 December 1987. When the challenge was carried to this Court, Writ Petition No. 761 of 1988 filed by the Society came to be dismissed on 15 April 1988. Further challeng