Krishna R. Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.4513 OF 2005

¶5

 Shri Krishna Ramchandra Thakur .. ..Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr.Vijay Gharat for the petitioner

¶9

 Respnodent no.2 present in person

¶10

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
 DATE : 4th APRIL, 2006

¶11

 P.C.:

¶12

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
 The respondent no.2 present in person though the advocate
 is absent.

¶13

 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by
 the District Court, Raigad dated 18.3.2005 by which
 allowing the appeal and dismissing the decree passed by
 the trial court on 19.12.2003.

¶14

 : 2 :

¶15

 3. The plaintiff came with the case that the suit
 property bearing a room situate on eastern portion of
 House No.285 admeasuring 14 x 21 ft. and a shed
 admeasuring 10 x 12 ft. situate at Village Bhendibazar,
 Karanja, Post Karanja, Tal. Uran, Dist. Raigad was let
 out to late Usman Issak Solkar by Yashwant Ramchandra
 Thakur. Usman Solkar was residing in the said tenanted
 property along with his family. He died on 25.6.1991,
 thereafter his wife Sabira and younger son Hidaytulla
 continue to reside there as tenant. Another son of late
 Usman stated to be residing in another house bearing
 No.276 in the same village, which was purchased by late
 Usman in the name of plaintiffs and the agreed rent was
 Rs.20/= p.m. Plaintiffs as such occupying the premises
 as tenant. Yashwant refused to accept the rent and
 stated that since there is a dispute between him and his
 brother i.e. Defendant no.1 Krishna, he would not accept
 the rent and therefore, dispute as to whom the rent
 should be paid arose and hence the interpleader suit to
 claim relief as per the rent was filed along with prayer
 for declaration of a status as tenant in the demised

¶16

 premises and injunction was also sought for as
 consequential relief.

¶17

 : 3 :

¶18

 4. The learned trial judge after hearing both the

¶19

 parties and on the basis of available evidence came to
 the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that
 there is dispute about the tenancy rights in between them
 and landlord or in between legal heirs of deceased Usman
 Solkar. It was further held that the plaintiffs proved
 that they were tenant in a room admeasuring 14 x 12 ft.
 with a shed of 10 x 12 ft. and as such the suit came to
 be dismissed.

¶20

 . The appeal was carried to the District Court
 Raigad at Alibag. The learned District Judge after
 hearing both the parties and on the basis of available
 evidence allowing the appeal holding that the plaintiffs
 were tenant in the demised premises including the room
 and shed. It was further held that the rent was to be
 paid to the present petitioner and plaintiffs were held
 entitled for declaration and status of tenant of the suit
 premises. Further it was held that the plaintiffs were
 entitled to claim injunction restraining the defendant
 from taking possession except indue course of law and as
 such appeal came to be allowed. Hence the present
 petition by defendant no.1 is filed.

¶21

 : 4 :

¶22

 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
 that his only grievance was to the effect that injunction
 was issued against him by the lower appellate court,
 however, in my view, the nature of injunction is much
 clear to the extent that the plaintiffs are held entitled
 to claim injunction to restrain the defendant from taking
 possession except in due course of law, which in my view,
 cannot be faulted. So far as status of

¶23

 petitioner-defendant no.1 is concerned, it is needless to
 mention that he is declared to be landlord, entitled to
 receive the rent and as such grievance sought to be made
 by the petitioner has no force. It is also to be
 clarified that if the petitioner wants to take the
 recourse to the law that opportunity is always made
 available by the lower appellate court stating that
 injunction is subject to rider that he can proceed indue
 course of law against the respondent.

¶24

 6. In view of this position, I do not see any merits
 in the petition, especially the reasoning adopted and
 finding recorded by the lower court appears to be just,
 legal and proper and there is no perversity.

¶25

 : 5 :

¶26

 7. In the result, the petition is devoid of any

¶27

 merits and therefore, stands dismissed with no order as

¶28

 to costs.

Krishna R. Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna R. Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Laxmi Charitable Trust Vs M/S. Slimwell and Ors.

Sulekha W/O.Ahmed Shaikh and Ors. Vs Krishnabai Wd/O.of Baban Rajge and Ors.

Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan Vs M/S.Rajesh Trading Company

Ganpat Sonu Tatkar Vs Bajrang Raghu Mane

Ravindra Vasant Shinde (Legal Heir of v.G.Shinde) Vs Narsinha Narayan Shirodkar and Ors.

Ankush Baburao Kawade Vs Tanaji Shankar Jadhav and Ors. .