The Bombay High Court bench comprising of Justice N.J. Jamadar dismissed a challenge by obstructionists against eviction proceedings concerning premises at Dhobi Talao, Mumbai.
The petitioners had resisted execution of a 1992 eviction decree passed in favour of the landlords (respondents 1 & 2), claiming tenancy rights through one Kurban Husein M. Pardawala, who allegedly purchased the property under a Deed of Conveyance dated 9 July 2002 and subsequently granted a registered tenancy agreement in 2006 to petitioner 2.
The Court noted that the said conveyance deed remained unregistered due to denial of execution by the attorney of the landlords and that neither Pardawala nor his successors pursued remedies under the Registration Act, 1908 or instituted a suit for specific performance. Consequently, no valid title vested in Pardawala, and he could not transfer tenancy rights to the petitioners.
Referring to Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC and Supreme Court precedents in Brahmdevo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal(1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 694, Shreenath v. Rajesh (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 543, Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab, (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 379, the Court reiterated that an executing court must adjudicate questions of right, title, and interest when obstruction is raised. However, in this case, the petitioners failed to establish an independent right.
The Court held that possession based on an invalid conveyance and derivative tenancy agreement could not defeat the eviction decree. It also noted that one petitioner was already a tenant of another room in the same building, suggesting misuse of possession to obstruct execution.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, rule discharged, and the eviction decree held executable against the obstructionists.
Cases Laws Referred
1. Brahmdevo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (1997) 3 SCC 694
2. Shreenath v. Rajesh (1998) 4 SCC 543
3.Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab(2015) 1 SCC 379
4. Sameer Dattatraya Deshpande v. Kishor Shamrao Jadhav, (2023) 1 Mah LJ 244
5. Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah v. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy, (1999) 7 SCC 114
Appearances:
Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay, a/w Prasad Nagargoje, for the Petitioners.
Mr. V. K. Gupta, for the Respondents.
