High Court dismissed a Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act wherein Plaintiffs sought relief against forcible dispossession, holding they failed to prove prima facie case of illegal dispossession and citing unreasonable delay.
Notice of Motion dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
nms 2308-12.doc
1/4
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2308 OF 2012 IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2417 OF 2012
Razia Rahim Kollampurambil & Anr. …Plaintiffs / Applicants vs. Kishor Harilal Jhoshi & Anr. ...Defendants
Mr. V.S. Bhadkamkar, for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Ulhas G. Kerkar, i/b. Mr. Victor K. Fernandes, for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
JULY 25, 2014
P.C. :
. The Plaintiffs have taken out the present Notice of Motion in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit premises consists of two flats which are owned by Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs claim to be conducting the business of a lodging house / hotel in the name of Hotel Palm Beach at the suit premises along with the husband of Plaintiff No.1. The Plaintiffs claim to have been forcibly dispossessed from the suit premises on 9 April 2012 and have filed the present suit on 25 July 2012.
2/4 nms 2308-12.doc
sg
approaching the Court for urgent ad-interim reliefs. No ad-interim relief was, therefore, granted to the Plaintiffs. The Motion has now come up for final hearing.
3. The short facts of the Plaintiffs' case may be stated thus :
Defendant No.2 carried on the business of Hotel, Lodging and Boarding / Guest House from the suit premises in partnership originally with one Satish Chandra Yadav in the name and style as Hotel Crystal Palms. Defendant No.1, who is the husband of Defendant No.2, was arrested under the NDPS Act in or about April 2003. Sometime in 2004, the Hotel was sealed by the police. The partnership was later dissolved. Defendant No.2 thereafter in or about 2005 / 2006 issued a Power of Attorney to her son-in-law, one Rajat Bedi, who in turn put the husband of Plaintiff No.1, one Mr. Thankachan, in possession of the suit premises. Thankachan started running the business of Lodging House / Hotel from the suit premises with the Plaintiffs in the name and style as Hotel Palm Beach. Thankachan kept a cash deposit with Rajat Bedi and started paying a monthly compensation in cash to the latter as C.A. of Defendant No.2. In the meanwhile, Defendant No.1 (husband of Defendant No.2) was released from jail. Thankachan expired on 8 April 2012. On or about 9 April 2012, Defendant No.1 stopped the Plaintiffs from running the Lodging House / Hotel business from the suit premises, resulting in their ouster from the suit premises otherwise than by due process of law.
3/4 nms 2308-12.doc
sg
Officer to the Hotel acknowledged by Thankachan, (iii) current bank account of Hotel Palm Beach in the name of Thankachan, (iv) Service Tax registration of the Hotel with CBSE showing the name of Thankachan and (v) some purchase receipts in the name of Thankachan for the Hotel. Some further documents are produced with the rejoinder and relied on at the hearing of the Notice of Motion. These include a purported Leave and Licence Agreement executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Thankachan on 27 April 2009 for use of the suit premises.
4/4 nms 2308-12.doc
sg
payment by Thankachan or the Plaintiffs to Defendant No.2 or her C.A., the said Rajat Bedi, for use of the suit premises. The belated production of an unregistered document of leave and licence agreement by Defendant No.1 in favour of Thankachan does not inspire any confidence. The case of the Plaintiffs in the plaint has been that Rajat Bedi put Thankachan in possession of the suit premises and there was no document evidencing the same and not that Defendant No.2 executed a licence in favour of Thankachan to use the suit premises. Merely because there are some notices or processes issued by statutory authorities in connection with the hotel business in the name of Thankachan, who in any event, is claimed to be the Manager of the Hotel, or there are some purchases made by Thankachan for the Hotel or even account of the Hotel was operated by Thankachan, Thankachan's ownership of the Hotel business in the name of Hotel Palm Beach is not even prima facie established. All these documents are consistent with the Defendants' case, namely, the said Thankachan was a manager of the Hotel. In any event, no connection whatsoever can be demonstrated between the Plaintiffs and the Hotel Business. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that on 9 April 2012, the Plaintiffs had possession of the suit premises. The unexplained delay in approaching the court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, is also a factor against the Plaintiffs.
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for dispossession otherwise than by due process of law under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the unexplained delay in approaching the court bars the grant of ad-interim relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Razia Rahim Kollampurambil & Anr.
Kishor Harilal Jhoshi & Anr.
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
