The court ruled that while unlawful dispossession was established, the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on technicalities violated the substantive rights under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) This is a classic case of a caretaker who had entered the property to take care of a senior citizen and has taken over possession, not just of the property of her care-seeker but has also grabbed the adjoining property of another lonely senior citizen taking disadvantage of his hospitalization. The City Civil Court has upheld the plea of unlawful dispossession in suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, but has declined to decree the suit by adopting a hyper-technical approach that the description of the suit property was not sufficient enough for passing ‘effective’ and ‘enforceable’ decree. Thus, despite succeeding in proving unlawful dispossession, the Plaintiff is denied the relief of restoration of possession resulting in the caretaker succeeding in grabbing even the adjoining property.

2) These are cross Revision Applications preferred against the judgment and order dated 21 September 2019 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in SC suit No.783 of 2014. The Suit was filed by Plaintiff -Maharukh Patel under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession of the suit premises. The learned Judge, though has held that the Defendant No. 1-Ruksana Barodawala has unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiff, the Suit is still dismissed on the ground of non-description of suit property with sufficient clarity for its identification. Accordingly, Plaintiff-Maharukh is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the City Civil Court dismissing her suit and has filed Civil Revision Application No.64 of 2021. Defendant No.1- Ruksana, on the other hand, is also aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court to the limited extent of recording of finding of unlawful dispossession and has accordingly filed Civil Revision Application No.304 of 2021.

3) Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the Plaint, are that the first-floor premises located in the concerned wing and numbered as Flat No.1 and situated at Plot No.148, Abbasi Building (formerly known as Mistry Building), Pathe Bapurao Marg, opposite Falkland Road Post Office Corner of Grant Road, Mumbai- 400008 (Flat No.1) comprise of five rooms. Out of the said five rooms in Flat No.1, Plaintiff-Maharukh has described three rooms along with separate toilet admeasuring total area of 1,000 sq.ft. as the ‘suit property’. According to the plaintiff, the rest of the two rooms along with another separate toilet were in occupation and use of Defendant No.1-Ruksana.

4) According to the Plaintiff, Flat No. 1 was originally used and occupied by Plaintiff's mother’s maternal uncle Late Mr. Motabhai Dosabhai Dubash (Motabhai) and aunt named Late Mrs. Dhanmai Motabhai Dubash (Dhanmai). Prior to Plaintiff's birth in the year 1960, her parents were put in possession of the suit property by Motabhai and Dhanmai. Plaintiff's father, Late Mr. Sorab Keki Engineer was an ex- employee of Indian Railways and her late mother was employed with Glaxo Laboratories, Mumbai. Plaintiff accordingly claims that her parents, Sorab (father) and Minnie (mother) were in joint use and occupation of the suit property since her birth on 26 October 1967. Plaintiff claims that her parents were put in uninterrupted possession and occupation of the suit property. After the death of Motabhai and Dhanmai, electricity connection was transferred in the name of plaintiff's father Sorab. Plaintiff relied upon several documents to prove the possession of the suit property by her parents. According to the Plaintiff, Motabhai and Dhanmai, during their lifetime, had permitted