Shri. Rameshwar N. Dahate vs Shri. Ravindra V. Kamble & Anr.

This First Appeal is filed against the Judgement dated 30^th April, 1993 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, in S.C. Suit No. 5858 of 1981, whereby the Learned Judge has decreed the Suit only in terms of prayers (aa) and (bb).

In this Judgement, the parties are referred to as per their nomenclature in the Suit.

The Plaintiff had filed Suit No. 5858 of 1981 for a declaration that Defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest in the Suit Premises being Tenement No.143/4297, at Kannamwar Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai- 400 083 (hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Premises”) and that Defendant No.1 was a trespasser and had no right to remain in the Suit Premises.

The Plaintiff also asked for a declaration that the Order dated 14^th February, 1989 passed by Defendant No.2 transferring the Suit Premises in the name of Defendant No.1 is illegal, bad-in-law, arbitrary, null and void and of no effect and not binding upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also prayed for a mandatory order directing Defendant No.1 to remove himself along with his family members and agents from the Suit Premises and for an order directing Defendant No.1 to hand over quiet vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Premises to the Plaintiff.

It is the case of the Plaintiff that he was allotted the Suit Premises some time in the year 1974 by then Maharashtra Housing Board and was residing in the Suit Premises along with his family members since then. At that time, the Plaintiff was serving in the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, having appeared for the competitive examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, the Plaintiff was selected to the post of Deputy Superintendant of Police / Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and was sent for training to Nashik in April, 1974. The Plaintiff, therefore, sent his family to native place at Akola and appointed one Mr. Keshar Singh to take care of the Suit Premises temporarily till the Plaintiff returned to Bombay. After the said Keshar Singh left for Gulf, the Plaintiff appointed one D.J. Pawar, Sub-Inspector of Police, to look after the Suit Premises and D.J. Pawar occupied the Suit Premises as the care taker on behalf of Plaintiff.

However, after D.J. Pawar obtained Government accommodation for himself, the Suit Premises were again left vacant. According to the Plaintiff, Mr. Singh and Mr. Pawar were in occupation of the Suit Premises as care-takers while he continued to be in lawful use and occupation as tenant and was paying the rent for the Suit Premises till September, 1980.

It is also the case of the Plaintiff that, being in the Police Department, and posted at various places out of Bombay, he was not in a position to know personally what was happening to the Suit Premises. However, in October, 1978, when the Plaintiff was transferred to Mumbai as Assistant Commissioner of Police, he visited the Suit Premises. To his surprise, he found Defendant No.1 in occupation of the Suit Premises along with his family. On the Plaintiff questioning him, Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff to allow him to stay in the Suit Premises till the examination of his children were over and till he could find other suitable accommodation. It is the case of the Plaintiff that, taking pity on Defendant No.1, he acceded to the request of Defendant No.1. However, subsequently, Defendant No.1 failed to vacate the Suit Premises. He only kept promising to do so but made no efforts to vacate the Suit Premises or obtain other accommodation.

It is further the case of the Plaintiff that some correspondence then ensued between the Plaintiff’s wife and Defendant’s wife in which various allegations were made and Defendant No.1 demanded Rs. 6,000/-from the Plaintiff to surrender the Suit tenament to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid Defendant No.1, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by cheque in April, 1981. The cheque has, however, not been encashed. After receipt of the cheque, Defendant No.1 refused to vacate the Suit Premises and, instead, filed a Suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 2111 of 1979, and obtained an ad-interim injunction by making false allegations.

The Plaintiff filed a F.I.R. with the Vikhroli Police Station on 3^rd July, 1981, under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, for house trespass. As Defendant No.1 failed to vacate the Suit Premises, the Plaintiff filed the present Suit. The Plaintiff also took out a Notice of Motion in this Suit and moved the Court for urgent ad-interim reliefs. After hearing the parties, the Court was pleased to grant ad-interim reliefs. On 2^nd September, 1982, Defendant No.1 made a statement that till the disposal of the Suit, Defendant No.1 would not part with or deal with the Suit Premises. In view of this undertaking, given by Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff did not press the Notice of Motion which was, thereafter, disposed of with no order thereon.

Similarly, in view of the statement made by the Advocate for the Plaintiff herein in Suit No. 2111 of 1981, that he would not take possession from the Defendant herein otherwise than by due process of law, the said Suit No. 2111 of 1981 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Defendant No. 1 filed his Written Statement dated 7^th August, 1986, taking up several contentions. In the Written Statement, Defendant No.1 relied upon an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 22^nd October, 1981, filed by him in the Notice of Motion, wherein Defendant No.1 has taken up the contention that he was put in exclusive possession of the Suit Premises in the month of May, 1977 and that he paid Rs.2,000/- to the Plaintiff, through his representative, as per the instructions of the Plaintiff, after which he started residing in the Suit Premises. Defendant No.1 also contended that, prior to May 1977, the Plaintiff sub-let the Suit Premises to others by taking some monetary consideration from them.

Defendant No.1 also contended that the Suit Premises had been lawfully transferred to his name. Defendant No.1 stated that, by an Order dated 5^th April, 1979, the Government had decided to sell the various tenements to the tenants, or in their absence, to the persons found in occupation of the respective tenement. That, in view of the said policy, he was entitled to purchase the said tenement from the Board as he was in exclusive possession since, May 1977. The Defendant No.1 further states that he has paid subsequent installments to the Housing Board for which he was issued receipts.

According to Defendant No.1, he was in urgent need of shelter in Mumbai. Therefore, when he came in contact with the Plaintiff in May 1977, he paid Rs.2,000/- to the Plaintiff through his representative as per the instructions of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff relinquished all his right, title and interest in respect of the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1 in May, 1977. Defendant No.1 has denied that he demanded Rs.5,000/- from the Plaintiff or that the Plaintiff under compulsion or under pressure paid him Rs.5,000/- by cheque bearing No. SB/CE/2975 dated 30^th May, 1977.

After filing of the Suit, the Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion, being Notice of Motion No. 1234 of 1987, for expediting the hearing of the Suit. The said Notice of Motion was made absolute after hearing both the parties. The matter thereafter came up for hearing and the issues were framed on 19^th January, 1989 and thereafter the Court started recording the evidence of the Plaintiff. On 27^th February, 1989, for the first time, Defendant No.1 informed the Court that the Suit Premises had already been transferred to his name by an Order dated 14^th February, 1989 passed by Defendant No.2 (MHADA). The Plaintiff thus sought time from the Court to consider his position and to take out appropriate proceedings in the matter. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1’s action clearly amounted to contravention and contempt of the undertaking dated 2^nd September, 1982 given by Defendant No.1 to the Bombay City Civil Court, namely, that Defendant No.1, till the disposal of the Suit, would not part with possession or dispose of or deal with the Suit Premises. Accordingly, after taking necessary advice, the Plaintiff took out Contempt Notice of Motion bearing No. 177 of 1989 and also a Chamber Summons No. 368 of 1989 for amendment. Replies were filed, and after hearing both the parties, the Chamber Summons were made absolute and the Plaintiff was allowed to carry out the necessary amendments. However, the Plaintiff did not press the contempt Notice of Motion.

After necessary amendments were carried out, the amended Plaint was duly served upon the Defendants, including newly added Defendant No.2 (MHADA). Defendant No.1 thereafter filed a supplementary Affidavit dated 8^th December, 1989 and Defendant No.2 filed a Written Statement dated 30^th November, 1989. By the said amendment, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the order of transfer dated 14^th February 1989, issued by Defendant No.2, transferring the Suit Premises in the name of Defendant No.1, is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and the same is not binding on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of the same.

In the amended Plaint, the Plaintiff has averred that the Defendants were aware of the address of the Plaintiff and that Defendant No.1 had given an undertaking that he shall not deal with the Suit Premises, pending disposal of the Suit. Defendant No.1, by his Supplementary Written Statement denied that he had knowledge of the address of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 submitted that he was not aware of the address of the Plaintiff and that public notices were given at the instance of Defendant No. 2.

Defendant No.2, by its Written Statement, contended that no statutory notice under Section 173 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, (“MHADA”) was given, and therefore, the Suit was not maintainable and further that the Bombay City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit, in view of Section 117 of MHADA. Defendant No.2 further contended that the Plaintiff had vacated the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1 without giving any intimation to Defendant No.2 and therefore, they could not give any notice to the Plaintiff. In view of the subsequent developments and pleadings, additional issues 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) were framed on 15^th December, 1989.

The issues framed by the Bombay City Civil Court in the present Suit are as under :

Before the Trial Court the Plaintiff examined himself. The Plaintiff also examined Sudesh Manikrao Borkar (PW-2) to prove the police weekly diary of the Plaintiff for May, 1977. The Plaintiff then examined one D. J. Pawar (PW-3) Inspector of Police, who was in occupation of the Suit Premises for some time as care taker. The Plaintiff also examined one Suresh Dattaram Tambe (PW-4) the Senior Clerk, Directorate of Police, Mumbai, to prove that the Plaintiff was Sub Divisional Officer at Achalpur District, Amravati, in May 1977. Further the Plaintiff examined one Madhav Kashinath Karge (PW-5), the Assistant Inspector of Police, to prove his posting. Lastly the Plaintiff examined Prabhakar Mahadeo Sawant (PW-6), the Superintendent of MHADA, who was the Officer of Defendant No.2 who issued transfer order of the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1. PW-6 was examined by the Plaintiff in view of the statement made by the counsel for Defendant no.2 that he did not want to examine any officer in the Suit. Defendant No.1 examined himself and one Anand Motiram Patole (DW-2) who, according to Defendant No.1, acted as the representative of the Plaintiff and gave him possession of the Suit Premises after receiving money.

The Learned Judge, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the Suit in terms of prayers (aa) and (bb) which read as under :

The learned counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) made submissions to the effect that the Learned Judge ought to have decreed the Suit in terms of other prayers in the Plaint also. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff had filed a Suit for trespass against Defendant No.1 in respect of the Suit Premises. Defendant No.1’s defence, in his Written Statement, was that he was a licensee/ transferee of the Plaintiff, who had secured valuable rights in the Suit Premises from the Plaintiff upon payment of consideration of Rs. 2000/- to the Plaintiff in May 1977. He submitted that the burden of proof to establish Defendant No. 1’s positive case in his Written Statement was obviously on Defendant No.1. He submitted that Defendant No.1 failed to prove that he was a licensee of the Plaintiff as per his pleadings in the Written Statement and, therefore, the only possibility that remained was that Defendant No.1 was a trespasser.

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff also submitted that, in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the impugned Judgement, the Learned Judge held that Defendant No.1 had failed to prove his case that the Plaintiff had put Defendant No.1 in possession of the Suit Premises and also failed to prove his case of payment of Rs. 2000/- to the Plaintiff. Further, in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgement, the Learned Judge rendered a categorical finding that Defendant No.1 had failed to prove that he had any right in the Suit Premises either as transferee, subtenant, or licensee or even otherwise.

He submitted that, in paragraph 16 of the impugned Judgement, the Learned Judge rendered another categorical finding to the effect that Defendant No.1 had failed to prove his case that the Plaintiff had relinquished or transferred his right, title or interest in the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that, on the basis of this findings rendered by the Learned Judge, the sole irresistible conclusion apparent was that Defendant No.1 is a trespasser. Instead, in paragraph 17 of the impugned Judgement, the Learned Judge rendered a finding that Defendant No.1 was a “licensee by sufferance”. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this erroneous and perverse finding had been arrived at by the Learned Judge on the basis of the allegation that one Arvind Patole, claimed by Defendant No.1 to be a representative of the Plaintiff, put Defendant No.1 in possession of the Suit Premises since 1977. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this allegation is completely dehors and contrary to the pleading of Defendant No.1 in his written statement. He submitted that the Learned Judge thus rendered his Judgement by accepting a contention which was not just beyond pleadings on record, but also directly contrary thereto, as it was Defendant No.1’s stated case that it was the Plaintiff himself who put Defendant No.1 in possession. There was no whisper of there being any purported “representative”, much less the said Arvind Patole being involved in the pleadings. Further, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the only piece of evidence that actually weighed with the Learned Judge to arrive at this finding was a purported letter dated 15^th January, 1980, issued more than 3 years after the alleged event, alleged to be addressed by Mr. Patole on the Plaintiff’s behalf to Defendant No.1 wherein he is said to have demanded back possession of the Suit Premises on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that this was a completely self serving piece of evidence rendered on behalf of Defendant No.1. He submitted that the Plaintiff did not even know the said Arvind Patole and that there was no evidence on record to establish any link between the Plaintiff and the said Arvind Patole. Further, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that this finding is ex-facie erroneous and perverse as a result of it being contrary to the evidence for various reasons. In this context, he submitted that, in his cross-examination, the said Arvind Patole himself admitted that he was not an authorized representative of the Plaintiff and that he had never put Defendant No.1 in possession of the Suit Premises or accepted the sum of Rs. 2000/-. He further admitted that the said letter dated 15^th January, 1980 was prepared by him on the basis of what Defendant No.1 told him and that the Plaintiff was nowhere in the picture. Arvind Patole further admitted that he did not know Defendant No.1 before 1978-79, and they met each other for the first time in 1978-79. Thus, there was no question of putting Defendant No.1 in possession in May 1977 as claimed by Defendant No.1. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that, even otherwise, neither the said letter, nor any other piece of evidence led on behalf of Defendant No.1, even remotely showed any link between the said Mr. Patole and the Plaintiff.

Further, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that a party contending to be a ‘licensee or tenant by sufferance’ must successfully prove that he came into possession of the property by or under lawful title, namely license or lease, as the case may be, and, thus, that his entry was lawful and duly permitted by the licensor/owner of the property. A licensee by sufferance is merely a licensee whose terms of license has expired or been determined by the licensor.

In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff relied on the following judgements :

Finally, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that, in light of the findings rendered by the Learned Judge to the effect that Defendant No.1 had failed to prove any license/ subtenancy/transfer from the Plaintiff, and considering that the whole ‘Patole story’ was completely bogus and liable to be disbelieved, the finding that Defendant No.1 is a licensee by sufferance is completely erroneous, perverse and unsustainable. He further submitted that Defendant No.1 having been totally unable to establish at the trial, any semblance of permission, license, right or interest granted by the Plaintiff to him to enter upon the Suit Premises, Defendant No.1 must clearly be held to be a trespasser in respect of the Suit Premises and liable to be evicted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the documents on record. The Respondents, though served, have not appeared.

The Learned Judge has answered issue Nos. 1a, 1b and 1c in favour of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Learned Judge has held that the transfer of the Suit Premises in the name of Defendant No.1 by Defendant No.2 was illegal and the Suit was maintainable. Further, the Learned Judge has also answered issue No.2 in favour of the Plaintiff thereby holding that the Plaintiff had not relinquished his right, title and interest in the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1 in May 1977.

An Appeal filed by Defendant No.1 has abated. Therefore, there is no challenge to the finding on these issues, which are in favour of the Plaintiff.

However, the Learned Judge has answered issue No.1 in favour of Defendant No.1 and held that Defendant No.1 was not a trespasser in respect of the Suit Premises. The Plaintiff has challenged the said finding of the Learned Judge in this Appeal. However, for the reasons given by me herein below, it would not be necessary to consider the said challenge of the Plaintiff to the said finding on issue No.1.

After deciding issue No.1 in favour of Defendant No.1 and deciding issue No.2 in favour of the Plaintiff, the Learned Judge has held the following in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgement.

In my view, the Learned Judge failed to appreciate that, even if Defendant No.1 was not a trespasser in the Suit Premises, as held by the Learned Judge, the Plaintiff had not relinquished his right, title and interest in the Suit Premises in favour of Defendant No.1. In these circumstances, the question that arises is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of eviction against Defendant No.1.

In this context, it is important to consider the pleadings and evidence on this point.

In paragraph 3 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has averred that, in or about October 1978, he was again transferred and posted to Mumbai as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The Plaintiff has stated that, when he came to the Suit Premises at Vikhroli, he found that Defendant No.1 was residing in the Suit Premises with his wife and children. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he questioned Defendant No.1 as to how he happened to be in possession and occupation of the Suit Premises. Defendant No.1 thereupon requested the Plaintiff to allow him to stay in the Suit Premises till the examinations of his children were over and till he could find out another suitable accommodation. The Plaintiff therefore, on compassionate grounds, allowed Defendant No.1 to stay in the said Suit Premises till the examination of his children would be over and he could find out any other suitable accommodation. Further, the Plaintiff has stated that, subsequently, Defendant No.1 went on promising the Plaintiff to vacate the Suit Premises but he did not vacate them, and made no effort to find out any suitable accommodation. The Plaintiff’s wife, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 17^th February, 1981 to Defendant No.1 requesting him finally to vacate the Suit Premises as the Plaintiff wanted to stay in the Suit Premises and as he did not have any accommodation in Mumbai. The Plaintiff has stated that to the said letter of his wife, Defendant No.1’s wife replied by letter dated 20^th February, 1981 making all false allegations against the Plaintiff and asserting lawful ownership and possession of the Suit Premises. The Plaintiff further stated that Defendant No.1 thereafter clearly refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s lawful requests made to him. Defendant No.1, on the contrary, demanded Rs. 5000/- from the Plaintiff to surrender possession of the Suit Premises to him. The Plaintiff, therefore, under compulsion, and out of necessity, paid Rs.5000/- by cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Buldhana to Defendant No.1. However, the cheque, which was issued in the name of wife of Defendant No.1, was not encashed.

The Plaintiff has further stated in the Plaint that ultimately in April 1981, he went to the Suit Premises and requested Defendant No.1 to vacate the Suit Premises. The Defendant No.1 at that time declined and refused to vacate the Suit Premises and instead of that filed a Civil Suit, being Suit No. 2111/81 in the Bombay City Civil Court, against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff states that, it is in these circumstances, that the Plaintiff filed the present Suit.

The aforesaid averments have been made by the Plaintiff in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Plaint. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of his Written Statement, the Defendant No.1 barely denied what was stated by the Plaintiff in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Plaint.

In his examination in chief, the Plaintiff deposed that, from Achalpur, he was posted to Mumbai as Assistant Commissioner of Police, in October, 1978. In October, 1978, when he came to Mumbai, he was surprised to see Defendant No.1 in the Suit Premises. Thereupon he asked the Defendant No.1 as how he was in the Suit Premises. Defendant No.1 told him that he was having his children’s exams and requested the Plaintiff to allow him to stay till the exams got over. The Plaintiff conceded to the said request. Further, the Plaintiff requested Defendant No.1 several times to vacate the Suit Premises but he did not vacate. Further, the Plaintiff deposed that, in or about February, 1981, his wife wrote a letter to Defendant No.1 asking him to vacate the Suit Premises. Defendant No.1’s wife replied to the said letter in which she asked for Rs. 5000/- to vacate the Suit Premises. The said letter was dated 20^th February, 1981. The Plaintiff has further deposed that, in April, 1981, he went to the Suit Premises to meet Defendant No.1, when Defendant No.1 confirmed that the letter was written by his wife and asked for the money. Therefore, the Plaintiff gave him a cheque of Rs. 5000/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Buldhana. The Plaintiff further deposed that Defendant No.1 accepted the cheque and requested the Plaintiff for some time to vacate the Suit Premises. He however did not vacate the Suit Premises and the cheque was not encashed.

Further, the Plaintiff has deposed that, in July, 1981, he registered a case of Criminal trespass against Defendant No.1 at the Vikhroli Police Station. Defendant No.1 then filed a Suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 2111/1981, in which Defendant No.1 obtained an ad-interim order. However, subsequently, the said Suit had been disposed of.

The aforesaid evidence of the Plaintiff was not shaken in cross-examination. In his cross-examination, the Plaintiff stated that, in October, 1978, when he found Defendant No.1 in possession of the Suit Premises, he asked him to vacate the same but he declined. Further, in cross-examination the Plaintiff stated that, from October, 1978, he was repeatedly requesting Defendant No.1 to vacate the Suit Premises and since Defendant No.1 did not yield to the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff had to ultimately file the present Suit.

In this context, the evidence of Defendant No.1 is very important. In his examination-in-chief, Defendant No.1 has accepted that the Plaintiff came to the Suit Premises on 7^th April, 1981 and asked Defendant No.1 to hand over possession of the Suit Premises to him. Defendant No.1 has also admitted in his examination-in-chief that he told the Plaintiff that after his children’s exams was over, and after the Plaintiff returned his money, he would hand over possession. Thus, even in his examination-in-chief, Defendant No.1 has admitted that he had agreed to vacate the Suit Premises after his children’s exams and after his money was returned to him. Further, in his cross-examination, Defendant No.1 admitted that, by a letter dated 20^th February, 1981, his wife had demanded Rs.5000/- from the Plaintiff’s wife for vacating the Suit Premises. He also stated that he since the cheque was post dated by a month and issued in favour of his wife, he did not vacate the Suit Premises immediately. He did not thereafter take steps to recover the sum of Rs. 5000/- from the Plaintiff but informed Mr. Patole to ask the Plaintiff to issue a cheque in his name as there was no account in his wife’s name. Defendant No.1 denied the suggestion that the cheque was returned because it was presented before the due date and not because his wife did not have her account.

Further, in his cross-examination, Defendant No.1 also admitted that it was true that he told the Plaintiff that he would vacate the Suit Premises after his children’s preliminary examination in April, 1981. He stated that he did not vacate the flat in April 1981 as the Plaintiff did not pay the money which he had deposited with the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 accepted that the Plaintiff gave him a cheque of Rs. 5,000/- in April, 1981. He denied the suggestion that he did not vacate the said Flat as he demanded more money from the Plaintiff.

The above evidence clearly shows that, even if Defendant No.1 was a licensee, he had agreed to vacate the Suit Premises. He even demanded Rs. 5000/- from the Plaintiff to vacate the Suit Premises and the Plaintiff gave him a cheque of Rs. 5000/-. Due to his own fault, Defendant No.1 did not encash the cheque. This clearly shows that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 that Defendant No.1 would vacate the Suit Premises on being paid Rs. 5000/-. The said sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 but due to his own fault Defendant No.1 did not deposit the cheque and reneged on his agreement to vacate the Suit Premises.

In my view, in light of the Defendant No.1 agreeing to vacate the Suit Premises, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for evicting Defendant Nos. 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), being heirs of Defendant No.1, who has passed away, from the Suit Premises, on paying them a sum of Rs. 5000/- along with simple interest thereon, at 10% p.a., from 1981 till vacating the property.

In these circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed. In addition to a decree in terms of prayers (aa) and (bb), as already granted in the impugned judgement., there shall be a decree directing Defendant Nos. 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) to remove themselves and their family members, agents and servants from the Suit Premises, being Tenement No. 143/4297, at Kannamwar Nagar, Vikhroli, Mumbai 400083, and to hand over quiet and vacant possession of the Suit Premises to the Plaintiff, on payment by the Plaintiff to them a sum of Rs. 5000/- along with simple interest thereon at 10% p.a. from April 1981 till the date of this Judgement.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.