ORDER :

G.B. Shah, J.

At the request of the learned Advocate Mr. J.T. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah, for respondent No.1, the matter is taken up for hearing for final disposal.

2. Rule. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned Advocate waives service of rule for respondent No.1. The learned advocate Mr. J.T. Trivedi has declared that respondent Nos. 2, 2/1 to 2/4 and 3 to 5 are formal parties against which learned advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah for respondent No.1 has not taken any serious objection.

3. The present petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad below Exh. 16 in Misc. Civil Appeal (Appeal from Order) No. 1 of 2013 whereby learned Judge dismissed the Appeal from Order and confirmed the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge below injunction application at Exh. 6 in H.R.P. Suit No. 1215 of 2012.

4. The short facts of the case are that deceased father of the present petitioner-original plaintiff-Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai Chandaljiwala was an original tenant of the suit premises situated in Ahmedabad City, Jamalpur area ward No.3 bearing City Survey No. 4280 ad measuring 111.08 sq. yards at ground floor, M.C.No. 3376 and Tenament No.23370556000101A at a monthly rent of Rs.8/since 1925 and he died on 28.06.1952. The respondent No.1 original defendant No.1 had purchased the said premises from erstwhile owner by registered sale deed in the year 1997. Further case of the present petitioner-original plaintiff is that she was born in 1946 and resided with her father in the suit premises along with her sisters. Her sisters are at present married and residing in matrimonial house. She is the legal heir of deceased Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai and after the death of deceased father and mother Rehmatbibi, being unmarried daughter, she acquired tenancy right under Section 5 (11)(c)(i) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for brevity herein after referred to as "the Rents Act"). It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the suit premises as an heir of the original tenant. Since the present respondent No.1 defendant No.1 threatened the petitioner to snatch away the possession of the suit premises, she filed H.R.P. Suit No. 1215 of 2012 against the respondent No.1 the present landlord as well as against all the legal heirs of Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai. Along with the suit, petitioner has also filed an application for temporary injunction.

4.1. It can be noticed from the record of the case that, initially, learned Trial Judge has granted ex parte interim status quo to be maintained by the parties in respect of the suit premises. The present respondent No.1- original defendant No.1 landlord appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement at Exh. 17 against the plaint as well as against injunction application-Exh. 6, inter alia, contending that the suit filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff and the injunction application are untrue, incorrect and void under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity herein after referred "the Code"); that the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are relatives of the petitioner-plaintiff; that Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai was not tenant of defendant No.1 but defendant No.1 had admitted that he had purchased the suit property on 14.03.1997 by executing the sale deed from previous landlord and in the said sale deed, it was written that "Fareedbhai Usmanbhai was tenant of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census No.3376 having one room". It was further contended that Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai-father of the petitioner was having his property in City Survey Jamalpur, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad bearing Survey No. 4253/32 and since Usmanbhai Ibrahimbhai had passed away on 28.06.1952, his heirs were residing in the said property consisting of three floors and the defendant Nos. 2 and 2/1 to 2/4 were resi