Domestic servants or strangers without blood/marriage ties to tenant cannot succeed to tenancy under rent laws post-death; emotional bonds/will invalid; trespassers; Civil Court lacks tenancy jurisdiction.

Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.):-

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04 March 2002 rendered by the learned Single Judge on First Appeal No. 490 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the respondents stands allowed, thereby setting aside the judgment and the order passed by the learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, decreeing Suit No. 5393 of 1985 filed by the respondents, inter alia holding that the appellant is a trespasser and liable to eviction from the suit flat.

2. At the outset, we may observe that the issue involved in the appeal is whether the appellants, in law were entitled to assert rights of tenancy sought to be derived by them from the original tenant, one Shri. P. S. Athwankar in respect of the premises being Flat No.5 situated at 1^st Floor, Shankar Bhavan, French Bridge, Mumbai – 400 007 (for short, “the suit flat”).

3. The respondents/owners are in Court for more than four decades i.e. about 41 years asserting that the appellants are the trespassers qua the suit flat having no legal rights to continue to occupy the suit flat, merely because they had good relations with the original tenant Shri. P. S. Athwankar (hereinafter referred to as “the tenant”) or merely as the appellant was residing along with the original tenant, asserted by the respondents in the capacity as a domestic servant.

4. Briefly the facts are:- The respondents/plaintiffs (for short, described as “the owners”) filed the Civil Suit in question before the City Civil Court at Bombay praying for a mandatory injunction against the appellants (original defendants) to remove themselves from the suit flat and for an order and decree to deliver peaceful, and vacant possession of the suit flat to the owners. Four substantive reliefs were prayed for in the suit in question which are required to be noted which read thus:-

“(a) That the Defendants may be ordered by a mandatory injunction of this Hon'ble Court to remove themselves from Flat No. 5 on the 1st Floor of Shankar Bhavan situated at French Bridge, Bombay 400007, forthwith;

(b) That the Defendants may be ordered and decreed to deliver to the Plaintiffs peaceful, quit and vacant possession of the said flat forthwith;

(c) That the Defendants may be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 600/- by way of damage or compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 24 per cent annum from the date of filling of this suit till payment;

(d) That the Defendants may be ordered or decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs future damaged or compensation or mesne profits for the wrongful and illegal use and occupation of the said flat at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit from the date of filling of this suit till vacant possession of the said flat is decreed to the Plaintiffs.”

5. In supporting the aforesaid prayers, the case of the owners was to the effect that one Shri. P. S. Athwankar was the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises for rent of Rs. 112.80 per month fixed prior to the month of November, 1965. The owners contended that the tenancy was terminated by the advocate’s letter dated 25 November 1965 addressed to the appellant. However, the appellants continued to wrongfully and illegally occupy the suit flat even after the termination of the tenancy. In August 1982, wife o