CRA-210-21 aw CRA 282-21.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2021

Rajdeo Bacharam Sharma

..Applicant

Versus

Haji Mohamed Rashid Jitekar

Since deceased through legal heirs

Mohamed Ebrahim Jitekar & Ors.

..Respondents

WITH

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.282 OF 2021

Kapil Bacharam Sharma

Since deceased through legal heirs

Smt. Sheiladevi Kapil Sharma

..Applicant

Versus

Haji Mohamed Rashid Jitekar

Since deceased through legal heirs

Mohamed Ebrahim Jitekar & Ors.

..Respondents

Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mitaali Shah i/by Vaibhav Mehta & Associates, for

the Petitioner in both the above Civil Revision Applications

Mr. Reshant Shah i/by M/s. Lex Conseiller, for the Respondents in

both the above Civil Revision Applications.

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: JULY 26, 2022

P.C.:-

1]

Both these Civil Revision Applications are by the Defendants to

RAE Suit No.706 of 1998 which was decreed on 30/1/2013 and the

judgment therein was confirmed in Appeal Nos. 7 and 8 of 2013,

1/6

BHARAT

DASHARATH

PANDIT

Digitally signed

by BHARAT

DASHARATH

PANDIT

Date: 2022.07.27

16:33:55 +0530

CRA-210-21 aw CRA 282-21.doc

which were preferred by Defendant No.2, Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d)

respectively.

2]

Facts necessary for deciding present Revisions are as under:-

3]

The suit property is located at Jitekar Wadi, Thakurdwar,

Mumbai, being Room No.88. Claim of the Respondents/Plaintiffs –

Non-applicant herein is, Rajaram Sharma was employed for collection

of rent for several years who subsequently introduced his son-in-law

Ram Bachha Bansidhar Sharma (For short “Ram Baccha”) in 1955-56

to the father of the Plaintiffs who was permitted to work as rent

collector and manager. It is claimed that said Ram Bachha was

initially on monthly salary of Rs 90/- and was occupying Room

No.88-G for which rent of Rs 10/- was deducted per month. It is

claimed that in 1982, salary was increased to Rs 550/- of which

Rs 50/- were deducted as monthly rent and in 1985 rent of the

premises was increased to Rs 87/- as against in 1991, his salary was

Rs 700/-.

2/6

CRA-210-21 aw CRA 282-21.doc

4]

Plaintiffs alleged that said Ram Bachha was service/gratituous

tenant and as such sought his eviction. Said claim for eviction was

resisted by Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) by filing Written Statement at

Exhibit-30 and that of Defendant No.2 at Exhibit-48. Both have raised

common defence as regards monthly tenancy and as a sequel

availability of protection under the then Rent Act.

5]

Trial Court while allowing the suit, recorded finding that

deceased Ram Bachha was permitted to occupy and reside in the suit

premises as an employee and as such Applicants/Defendants are

unlawful occupants. Trial Court also recorded finding that present

Applicants/Defendants failed to prove that Ram Bachha and after him

Defendant No.1 were paying rent to the Plaintiffs. The aforesaid

decree was upheld by the Appellate Court. That being so present

Revisions.

6]

Mr. Surel Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants

would urge that judgments impugned are not sustainable as very

decree is without jurisdiction. So as to substantiate his claim, he has

3/6

CRA-210-21 aw CRA 282-21.doc

drawn support from the alleged order dated 19/6/2000 passed in

Interim Notice dated 4338 of 1998, claim of deduction of rent from

salary of deceased Ram Bachha and positive finding recorded by the

Appellate Court in favour of the Applicants. So as to further

substantiate his claim, he has drawn support from the pleadings and

evidence of the respective parties

7]

While countering aforesaid submissions, Counsel for

Respondents would support the Judgment impugned, as according to

him, suit was initiated in 1998 and for last 24 years decree is not

permitted to be executed. According to him, once e