Bombay High Court
Jamila Khatoon Wd/O Nazar Hussain ... vs Khan Mehnaz Sultana Imran Khan on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
922. WP 575 of 2019.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.575/2019
Jamila Khatoon wd/o Nazar Hussain and others
...Versus...
Khan Mehnaz Sultana Imran Khan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. R.J. Mirza, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 18/07/2023
1. Heard Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for the
petitioners. The petition challenges the judgment dated
25/04/2016, passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby
decree for eviction has been granted against the original
defendant under Section 16 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 (for short, "MRC Act", hereinafter). The said
decree has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court by
the judgment dated 19/12/2018 (pg.78) dismissing the
appeal.
2. Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties hereto and therefore, the finding rendered
by the Courts below regarding the Small Causes Court having
922. WP 575 of 2019.odt
jurisdiction to order eviction under the provisions of the MRC
Act, according to him, is flawed. He further contends that the
original defendant was put in possession of the suit premises
under three agreements of sale, dated 15/06/2007 (Exh.61);
08/05/2008 (Exh.62) and 15/01/2009 (Exh.60) and
therefore, the status of the original defendant was that of a
transferee in possession in part performance, in light of which,
the provisions of the MRC Act were clearly not attracted. These
are the only contentions advanced.
3. Both the learned Courts below have rendered a
concurrent finding of fact that there was a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the original defendant and
respondent herein. The learned Small Causes Court, for this
purpose, has relied upon the evidence of the
respondent/plaintiff in this regard and more so, the cross-
examination, which indicates that except for a suggestion of
denial of the relationship, there is no cross-examination on
that count. Most of the cross-examination by the original
defendant is about the loan taken by the respondent/plaintiff
from the HDFC and the defaults made by her. It is also material
to note that the original defendant has not entered into witness
box in support of his defence. Thus, in spite of the fact that
rent receipts were not placed on record, the learned Small
Causes Court has rendered a finding about the existence of a
relationship of landlord and tenant, which has been upheld by
the learned Appellate Court, which in absence of any rebuttal
922. WP 575 of 2019.odt
evidence, will have to be accepted. The need also is not being
questioned.
4. Considering the plea of Mr. Qureshi, learned
counsel for the petitioners that the original defendant was a
transferee in possession under the aforesaid agreements, he
was asked to point out the clause in the agreements at Exh.60
to 62 under which he claimed delivery of possession. He fairly
concedes that there was no clause evincing delivery of
possession in any of the agreements. The possession of the
original defendant, therefore, cannot be related to the
agreements at Exhs.60 to 62. It is, therefore, apparent that the
petitioner/original defendant has failed to establish his
possession as that of a transferee under the aforesaid
agreements. That being the only defence, raised by the
respondent, in my considered opinion, which is not spelt out
by the agreements at Exhs.60 to 62, no interference is called
for in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Courts
below.
5. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in
the impugned judgment, considering the limited nature of
challenge raised before me. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
