Subodh Dinanath Rangnekar Vs Nitin Chandulal Bhansali

1.	The	petition	er	is the	original	defenda	nt in	R.A.E.	&
R.	Suit	No	.516/1	015 of	1997.	The	suit	is for	eviction,
inter	alia,	on	the	grou	nds of ar	rears	of re	nt and	change
of	user.		In	this	suit, the	plaintiff	took	out	Interim
Notice	No.5	642	of	2003	praying tha	t noti	ce be	issued	to
the	defendan	t	aski	ng him	to show	cause	why	the	written
statement		dated	13	/4/1999	filed by	the	defen	dant	should

¶12

not be struck off as the defendant has failed to comply

¶13

with the scrutiny order dated 31/7/2003.

¶14

2.	By	the	imp	ugned	orde	r dated	14/12	/2004,		the	trial
court	has	made	the	n	otice	absolute.		The	trial	court	has
directed	the	defen	dant	to	pay	the	amount	as	direc	ted	by
the	court	in	th	e	said	scrutiny	order	d	ated	31/	7/2003
within	four w	eeks	from	the	da	te of	that	order.		The	trial

¶15

: 2 : court has further ordered that on failure to comply with the said direction, the defendant’s right to defend will be struck off and he will be debarred from appearing in

¶16

the suit. This order is challenged in this writ

¶17

petition.

¶18

3.	I have	heard, at considerable	length,	Mr.	Nadkarni,
the	learned	counsel appearing for	the	petitioner.	He
contended	that	the impugned order	suffers	from	patent
illegalities	and is	liable to be set	aside.	He	submitted
that t	he plainti	ff has describe	d the	defendant	as
intermeddler	and	trespasser. Th	erefore,	there is	no
relationship	of	landlord and tenant	between	the two	and,
therefore,	the	suit itself is no	t m	aintainable.	The
learned	counsel	further submitted	that	the plaintiff	has
not	served	any notice on the	defendant	and,	therefore,
such a	suit	is bad in law.	Mr.	Nadkarni,	further
contended	that	in any event, the	trial	court could	not
have	directed	the defendant to pay	such	an	exorbitant

¶19

amount of rent. The learned counsel contended that in

¶20

view of this, the impugned order be set aside.

¶21

4.	I am	unable	to	agr	ee		with the	learned	counsel.	It is
necessary	to	note	a	few			facts to	appreciate	the case	of
the	parties.		Interim		No	ti	ce No.6003	of	1999 was	taken
out	by	the	defen	dant			praying that		maintainability	and
jurisdiction	be	d	ecided		as		a pr	eliminary	issue.	On
17/7/2001,		that	notice		w	a	s discharg	ed.	Admittedly	, this
order	was no	t ch	allenged		by		the de	fendant.	On	31/7/2003,
the	trial	court	pass	ed	th	e	scrutiny	order.	The	trial

¶22

court	: 3 : noted that the defendant was present in the	court.
The	trial court ordered the defendant to deposit in	the
court	a sum of Rs.1,02,782.20ps. upto 30/6/2003	and
continue	to deposit from August, 2003 an amoun	t of
Rs.633.75ps.	towards the arrears of rent and	repair
cess.	It appears from the order that the	defendant
expressed	his inability to pay the amount in	lumpsum.
Therefore,	the trial court directed the defendant	to
deposit	monthly instalment of Rs.25,000/- each payabl	e on
10th	day of every month from August, 2003. The	trial
court	ordered that the amount, as and when deposit	ed, be
paid	over to the plaintiff. Therefore, the	defendant
accepted	the scrutiny order; asked for instalment	and
did	not challenge that order. Thereafter, the	defendant
took	out another notice being Interim Notice No.4448	of
2003	again praying that maintainability and	jurisdiction
of the	court be decided as a preliminary issue.	On
19/11/2003,	that notice was discharged after	observing
that	similar notice was taken out by the defendant	and
was	earlier discharged. The defendant filed	Civil
Revision	Application No.11 of 2004. The Division	Bench
of the	Small Causes Court dismissed the same	on
29/1/2004.	The defendant filed a writ petition in	this
court be	ing Writ Petition No.2647 of 2004. On	27/4/2004,
this	court dismissed the said writ petition	observing
that	even earlier notice taken out for the same	purpose
was	dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff	then

¶23

took out instant Interim Notice No.5642 of 2003, which

¶24

has been made absolute by the trial court.

¶25

: 4 : 5. In my opinion, in the	afor	ementio	ned facts	and
circumstances, the trial court	cannot	be	faulted	for
having made the notice absolute.	The	order	may app	ear to
be harsh but, it is not so. T	he le	arned	judge has	merely
stated that the defendant should	pay	the	amount	within
the time frame laid down by	it,	fail	ing which	the
defendant’s right to defend would	be	struck	off.	As
observed by me earlier, on 31/7	/2003,	the	defendant	was
present in the court; he ask	ed for	inst	alment and	did
not challenge that order. More	over,	the	defendant	took
out another notice No.2135 of	2004	prayi	ng for	reduction
of amount of monthly instalment.	That	aga	in shows	that
the defendant accepted the court’s	order.		However,	the
defendant went on taking out	the	notice	s for	trying
issues of maintainability and	jurisdic	tion	as p	reliminary
issues. In my opinion, the d	efendant	has	shown	total
disregard to the orders passed by	the	trial	court	which
he has, in fact, accepted on tw	o occa	sions.	Again	an
effort was made to argue before	me	that	the Small	Causes
Court has no jurisdiction. In	that	connect	ion also	one
notice was taken out, which was	discha	rged.	That	order
was not challenged. The secon	d not	ice	was challeng	ed in
the High Court. The High C	ourt d	ismissed	the	petition.

¶26

In such circumstances, when the scrutiny order is clearly

¶27

flouted, no leniency can be shown to the defendant.

¶28

Hence, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and

¶29

rejected as such.

¶30

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Subodh Dinanath Rangnekar v. Nitin Chandulal Bhansali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Dinanath Rangnekar v. Nitin Chandulal Bhansali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Shantilal Dagli Vs Kusum M. Hatalkar

Ambika Yadav Vs Dharmaji Tukaram Malgaonkar

A.D. Bangera Vs Harsukh Dhanjibhai Mehta

Jayakar Shetty Vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Ramesh Amarnath Malhotra Vs Anant Narayan Patil

Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan Vs M/S.Rajesh Trading Company