Rent

RAJESh TRIVEDI (Querist) 11 February 2013 This query is : Resolved
SIR,
I AM STAYING IN PAGHADI SYTEM IN MUMBAI AND MY CASE IS AS UNDER:
Plaintiffs have obtained this premises on through registered deed in 1958 from Shri Mulraj Ghedia & Brothers. After obtaining the premises on lease, leaseholder have constructed one building of ground plus three floors and three chawls on this plot of land. M/S .F.E.Dinshaw Trust is the original owner of whole land of Irani Wadi admeasuring 421/2 Acres from Malad, now at Kandivali (West). That F.E.Dinshaw Trust as leased this entire Irani Wadi to P.A.Irani in 1945. Said Irani has sublet the property to Mulraj Ghediya & brothers. Ghediya brothers have subdivided the said plot of land into small plots and have leased those plots to various persons for construction and residential purpose. Plaintiffs have obtained this plot of land from Ghediya Brothers on lease.M/s.F.E.Dinshaw Trust had filed a suit being suit No.464/73 in Hon'ble High Court against P.A.Irani and Ghediya Brothers for recovery of possession. After contesting the matter as per Judgment dt.9.10.1985 the suit is decreed. M/s. Dinshaw Trust is found to be entitled for possession of entire Irani Wadi and defendants of that suit are directed to hand over possession to Dinshaw Trust. However, that decree is not yet executed.M/S F.E.Dinshaw Trust has issued a public nottice for auction of the property and Mr. R. S Dwivedi and others have purchase a property through this auction and claiming their ownership rights on the plot with structure standing there on. The Plaintiffs have file a suits in civil court that they are in lawfull possession of the said plot and they can be dispossess through due process of law and suit is disposed with the order that the valuation of plot is above Rs.3 lakhs and this court has no jurisdiction to trial and suit the case and suit can not be decreeed and plaint is return to the plaintiff for presentation before proper court.
Palintiff ahs filed a civil suit in mumbai high court and pass a following intrim order.

1. The Appeal No. 826 of 2012 has been admitted as prima facie a arguable point with regard to at least jurisdiction of the trial court has been made out. The trial court has held that the appellant has failed to prove that he has in lawful possession of the suit premises.

2. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion, prima facie, that the question is not of lawful possession but protecting the physical possession of the appellant – plaintiff and that cannot be interfered with or obstructed or taken away, save and except by due process of law.

3. In these circumstances, there will be ad-interim order directing the respondents to this appeal/application from dispossessing the appellant/applicant of the land admeasuring 3170 sw.yrds. bearing CTS No.149, 149/1 to 45 situated at Village Malad (North), save and except by due process of law. However, if there are structures which are standing on the said lands and which are stated to be in possession of third party, then, any amounts that are being collected by the applicant towards rent or compensation shall be collected but an account of such collection shall be filed in this court every year on affidavit by the appellant-plaintiff. The Civil Application is made absolute in these terms but without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties.

4. At this stage, Mr. Thorat and Mr. Panickar seek a clarification that if the interim relief is not granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application, then, the contesting parties may be allowed to display or put the board, containing their name or name plate on the suit premises but without stating therein that these parties are in physical possession.
Mr.Lulia states that on the last occasion complication arose because the board which is sought to be displayed contained a statement that the contesting respondents are in physical possession. Equally, putting security guards would mean that the appellant's possession is interfered with and that also creates a doubt in the mind of those occupants who are liable to
pay rent/compensation for the occupation of the rooms and the structures and thereafter such occupants refused to pay the rent/compensation to the appellant-applicant.

5. To my mind, if a board only showing name plate and displaying the name or business styled by the contesting respondents can
be placed but without containing any statement with regard to the physical
possession of the said parties. Secondly, putting up a name plate would be enough protection and it is not as if the appellant-applicant will then be able to create any obstacle or hindrance in the event the contesting respondents succeed in their own proceedings or in this appeal. For such reasons, to my mind, the prayer to place security agency in-charge of the
suit property also need not be granted at this stage.

6. Civil Application is allowed in the above terms. No costs

In above circumstances, to whom we should pay the rent and protect our tenancy ? shold we continue to pay the rent to the plaintiff to whom we are paying rent ? or we should pay the rent to the plot owner ? or we should deposit our rent in court through legal process ? It seems that some person having vested interest is misguiding us and we are total 80 tenants and it is a matter of litigation and we are unable to understand the same and it is a question of survival of approximate 300 human life. so i request you to guide us what to do on humantrian ground and oblige.

THANKS

Follow Query

Report Abuse

R.K Nanda (Expert) 11 February 2013
query too long. contact local lawyer.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 12 February 2013
It shall be better to engage a special lawyer for this long matter otherwise general direction can be given here.