Kalpana Koyama (Kalpana R. ... vs Smt. Vatsalaraje R. Ghatge And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 2697 Bom

                                           1                         230) wp794-99.doc

sas
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       CIVIL APPEL ATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION NO.794 OF 1999


      Kalpana Koyama (Kalpana R. Ghatge),
      residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
      Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020.                        ..Petitioner.

                      V/s.

      1.    Mrs. Vatsalaraje R. Ghatge
      residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
      Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020.

      2.     Ms. Kavita R. Ghate,
             residing at 16, Chateau Marine,
             Marine Drive, Mumbai - 400 020.                 ..Respondents.


      None for the Petitioner.

      Ms.Namrata Vinod I/b. M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for Respondent
      Nos.1 & 2.

                                      CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

DATE : 1 JUNE, 2017

FINAL ORDER

The matter is called out for final hearing as the petition is

2 230) wp794-99.doc

specifically listed for final hearing in summer vacation.

2. The present petition is filed by one of the daughters

(original Defendant No.1) thereby challenging order dated 29

August, 1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes

Court, Mumbai whereby the eviction order was issued. This Court,

after hearing the Petitioner in person and the Respondents, while

admitting the petition has granted the protection to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, therefore, has been in possession of the tenanted

premises along with her sister Kavita (original Plaintiff No.2) and

mother Mrs.Vatsalaraje (original Plaintiff No.1). Learned counsel

appearing for the contesting Respondent Plaintiffs, who have filed

the suit against the Petitioner because of family dispute, makes a

statement that Vatsalaraje Raje expired on 9 June, 2009 and

Respondent No.2 Kavita, sister of Petitioner moved out of the

tenanted premises since long. The Petitioner is in possession of the

premises in view of the protection granted by this Court since 1999.

There is no challenge to the entire proceedings by the original

landlord / owner. In view of this position, there is no objection from

3 230) wp794-99.doc

any side, for the Petitioner to occupy the premises and continue to

be in possession till the final decision of the suit.

3. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the view that

there is not point in keeping the petition pending as the Petitioner

(Kalpana), who is in possession of the premises, will continue to

retain the possession till the appropriate proceedings, if any, initiated

by the owner / landlord. So far as the present family dispute and in

view of the fact of not pressing the proceedings against the Petitioner

by the original Plaintiffs, the impugned order is required to be

quashed and set aside and ordered accordingly.

4. The present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(a) by setting aside the impugned order only. So far as the other

prayers are concerned, let that be decided in the main proceedings

which are stated to be pending till this date. It is made clear that the

Petitioner is entitled to continue to retain the possession till the suit

is finally decided. The Petitioner shall continue to pay the necessary

charges which is stated to be paid by her regularly i.e. electricity,

4 230) wp794-99.doc

maintenance, etc. if any. I am inclined to dispose of this petition even

though the Petitioner in person is not appearing and in view of the

statement recorded and as I am allowing the petition and granting

protection, as stated above in favour of the Petitioner.

5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)