Bombay High Court
Ramchandra R. Bhute (Since ... vs Govind Kabra Bhadricha on 11 January, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
2-cac-139-19 in crast-33337-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.33337 OF 2018
Ramchandra R. Bhute (Since Deceased)
Through Lrs.
Sulochana Wd/o Ramchandra Bhute & Ors. ..Applicants
V/s.
Govind Kabra Bhadricha ..Respondent
----
Nilam
Digitally signed
by Nilam Kamble Mr.Harshad A. Sathe for the Applicants.
Date:
Kamble 2021.01.11
15:03:48 +0530
Mr.Ashotosh Gavnekar for Respondent. (V.P. to be filed).
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 11th JANUARY 2021
P.C.
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1
years and 232 days, in filing a Civil Revision Application,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 17 th December 2016
passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai
in Appeal No.115 of 2017. By the impugned judgment and decree
the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and R.A.E & R
Suit No.964/1598 of 2002 has been decreed inter alia on the ground
that the premises were sublet.
N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5
2-cac-139-19 in crast-33337-18
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised three
contentions in support of the condonation of delay. Firstly, it is
submitted that the Applicant No.1A is aged about 90 years and other
applicants are also Senior Citizens. Secondly, it is submitted that
they are illiterate, and therefore, they could not take steps for
challenging the decree within time. Thirdly, reliance is placed on a
statement made on behalf of the contesting respondents before the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.525 of 2011. The
learned counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph No.4 of
the judgment dated 09th June 2011 which reads thus :
"4. The only grievance which is urged on behalf of
the petitioners, who are 13 in number, is that the
developer had filed an Indemnity Bond before MHADA
stating that no suits were pending, whereas, the
landlord has instituted several suits for eviction which
are pending before the Small Causes Court. Hence, it is
urged that the revalidation of the NOC was obtained on
the basis of a misrepresentation. In substance,the
grievance of the Petitioners is that while on the one
hand the landlord is proceeding ahead with the
redevelopment on the assurance that all the existing
tenants would be given alternate accommodation on
ownership basis, on the other hand, the suits for
eviction are being pressed before the Small Causes
Court and if those suits are decreed many of tenants
would be dis-housed. In order to meet this grievance,
counsel appearing on behalf of the First and Second
N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5
2-cac-139-19 in crast-33337-18
Respondents, who are the developers, states on
instructions that all the existing tenants, who are
certified by MHADA, shall be given permanent alternate
accommodation in the redeveloped building on
ownership basis and that consequently the suits for
eviction against the tenants whose names have been
certified by MHADA shall not be pressed. The
statement as aforesaid has been accepted."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. It is submitted that the contesting respondents had
made a statement that all such suits against the existing tenants,
who are certified by the MHADA shall be given permanent alternate
accommodation and consequently the suits against those tenants
shall not be pressed.
5. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the
applicants were made to believe that the proceedings for eviction
will not be prosecuted and that has resulted into the delay. Except
these, there are no other grounds raised.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the petitioner has not been certified as a tenant.
N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5
2-cac-139-19 in crast-33337-18
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to
the observations in paragraph No.6 of the judgment in Writ Petition
No.525 of 2011 which read thus :
"The petitioners have also assured the Court through
their counsel that all the petitioners will duly co-
operate in the scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33
(7). The building, the Court has been informed, was
constructed in 1894 and is in urgent need for
redevelopment. We clarify that in the event that there
is any dispute in respect of a sub-tenancy or as between
the heirs of a certified tenant, that would be resolved
before the competent forum."
8. I have considered the circumstances and the
submissions made. It transpires during the course of the hearing
that the ground based on the statement made before the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.525 of 2011 was not raised
before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. That apart
the statement was that the suits against the existing tenants who are
certified by the MHADA shall not be pressed.
9. A specific query was made to the learned counsel for
the applicant to show that late Ramchandra R. Bhute was certified
as a tenant by MHADA. The learned counsel for the applicant has
referred to the list of tenants-occupants as certified by MHADA on
04th October 2006. He has referred to Serial No.23 wherein the
N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5
2-cac-139-19 in crast-33337-18
name of the tenant is shown as Shri.Baburao H. Patil and name of
the Shri.Ramchandra R. Bute is shown as an occupant.
It can thus be seen that Ramchandra R. Bhute has not
been certified as a tenant. Thus the said ground in my considered
view cannot be accepted.
10. Even the other grounds are quite omnibus which in my
considered view cannot be accepted for condonation of a substantial
delay of 1 year and 232 days.
11. In the result, the Civil Application is dismissed, with no
order as to costs.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5
