Obstructionists claiming rights over structures on leased land cannot oppose execution of eviction decrees, as they lack independent title and are considered mere licensees of the tenant.

JUDGMENT :

1) These Civil Revision Applications are filed by Obstructionists who have obstructed execution of the decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 27 February 2003 by which, R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1184/3460 of 1990 filed by the 0riginal Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been decreed directing eviction of Defendant/Respondent No.3 from the suit property. Applicants in these Revision Applications claim to be owners of structures in their possession and it is their contention that the said structures do not form part of the decree for eviction and that therefore they cannot be evicted from their respective structures in execution of the said decree. Obstructionist Notice No.59 of 2003 taken out by the Decree Holders has been made absolute by the Executing Court by judgment and order dated 20 November 2017 directing the obstructionist/applicants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to Plaintiffs. The said order dated 20 November 2017 passed by the Executing Court has been unsuccessfully tested by Applicants before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by filing various Appeals, which have been dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by judgment and order dated 4 May 2022. The decisions of the Small Causes Court (Executing Court) making Obstructionist Notice absolute as well as of the Appellate Bench in dismissing the Appeals filed by Applicants are subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Applications.

2) Shorn of unnecessary details, it would be necessary to narrate brief history of the litigation. Plaintiffs, Ashok D. Bhuta and Naresh D. Bhuta are owners of land admeasuring 3448 sq.mtrs at 76 Part H2 (Part) at Bhandup. The land was reserved as ‘Heavy Industrial Area’by the Municipal Corporation under the Town Planning Scheme. By Lease Deed executed on 30 September 1972, Plaintiffs granted lease in respect of land w.e.f. 1 October 1970 for a period of 25 years on ground rent of Rs.175/- per thousand square yards for net area of 3030 sq. mtrs, out of total area of 3449 sq. mtrs after deducing non-useable area of 419 sq. mtrs due to water stream passing through the land. The lease was for manufacturing purposes either as it is or by putting up buildings, structures or sheds thereon at the cost of the lessee. The lease-deed contained a covenant which entitled the lessee to sublet the demised land or part thereof with or without building to any person for such period as determined by the lessee subject to the said user or demise not exceeding the period beyond the period fixed in the lease. The lessee was also entitled to assign the buildings and structures together with his interest in the leasehold plot of land.

3) Plaintiffs served Notice dated 17 July 1990 terminating the lease and calling upon Defendant to vacate the suit property, inter- alia, on the ground of arrears of rent as on 1986, as well as bonafide need of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1184/3460 of 1990 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the Defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property together with a small shed located thereon and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.22,860/- as well as enquiry into mesne-profits.

4) R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1184/3460 of 1990 came to be dismissed by the Small Causes Court on 30 November 2000 holding that though the Defendant was in arrears of rent, it was ready and willing to pay the amount of rent. Plaintiffs filed Appeal No. 82 of 2001 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court challenging the Trial Court’s decree dated 30 November 2000. The Appellate Bench allowed the Appeal vide decree dated 27 February 2003, set aside Trial Court’s decree dated 30 November 2000 and decreed R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1184/3460 of 1990 holding that Defendant was in arrears of rent and that Plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession of the suit premises. Defendant filed Writ Petition N0. 4042 of 200