He also companytended that this was a hard case in which an old lady aged about 75 years was being victimised by the respondents who were in the habit of illegally occupying various premises in Bombay and that in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 842 of the Constitution of India.
It is also stated by the petitioner that respondent filed criminal application No.
The petitioner also refers to the filing of a civil suit for declaration and injunction, namely, RAD No.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the second week of November, 1992 when the petitioner was out of Station for sometime, the respondents Nos.
1 and 2.
It is stated that on 21/22.2.1993 the respondents threatened the petitioner with dire companysequences and, therefore, petitioner gave a companyplaint to the Inspector of police, Gamdevi, Bombay on 26.2.1993.
It is against this order of the High Court dated 9.7.12996 that this special leave petition has been filed.
1050/1995 challenging the order dated 7.7.1995 and 25.4.1995 and the same was also dismissed by the High Court on 8.12.1995.
Learned senior companynsel for the petitioner, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, companytended that the orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26.4.1996 and the further orders passed by the High Court on 9.7.1996 were liable to be set aside as the possession of the respondents was a companytinuing wrong.
Present Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Honble Mr. Justice Jagannadha Rao Soli J. Sorabji and J.G. Shah, Sr.
Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 145 of the Cr.
Petitioner is in possession of the remaining 2500 sq.
Advs.,
and at least one companyy shall be published by being affixed to some companyspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.
The matter was finally heard on 23.4.1997.
Separate numberice was taken to the second respondent and was served on 9.9.1996.
The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute.
4th Court, Girgaum dated 26.4.1996.
receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under Sub section 1 , in possession of the subject of dispute.
The petitioner also states that a companyplaint was made by the petitioner against the respondents for cheating and a case was registered and writ petition bearing No.
189/1995, and the same was dismissed on 7.7.1995.
Respondents filed a revision before the Session Court bearing No.
i.e. One half of the property, by the respondents Nos.
in Malabar Hills.
The Court pointed cut that as per the case of the petitioner, she had been out of possession from November 1992 and, therefore, she companyld number take advantage of the proviso to sub clause 4 of Section This order is challenged in this Special leave petition.
540/1996 before the High Court of Bombay and the same was dismissed on 7.7.1996 holding that the petitioner was number in possession for more than two months before the date of passing of preliminary order under Section 145 1 on 16.3.1992.
It is also stated that respondents made an application to the Metropolitan Magistrate for dropping of Section 145 proceedings and the said application was rejected on 25.4.1995.
It appears that at the request launched proceedings against the respondents under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation Prevention Act, 1971 and the High Court of Bombay, after numbericing that the respondents wore illegally and forcibly occupying several premises and were instituting various proceedings, came to the companyclusion that the said proceedings started by the respondents were vexatious and that they should number be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings, except with the sanction cf the Advocate General.
M.D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, R. Sathyanarayanan and Manoj K. Singh, Advs.
Bombay.
Notice was issued to the respondents in the special leave petition and numberice was served and at one time Mr. M. Jadhav appeared for the first respondent.
with them for the Petitioner Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.
peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties.
The brief facts of the case are as follows The petitioner is aged 75 years and is staying in one half of a house companyprising 2500 sq.
973/1993 dated 27.5.1992 was filed by the respondents for quashing the same.
Even on that day Mr. S.M. Jadhav, companynsel for the first respondent did number appear number was there any representation for the second respondent.
NP for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This special leave petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 9.7.1996 dismissing the writ petition criminal No.
The High Court refused to quash the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
1 and 2 with the help of some other persons companystructed a cement wall in the suit premises and divided the ground floor companysisting of 5000 Sq ft into half and half and that this amounted of illegal occupation of 2500 Sq.
on the ground floor.
on the ground floor of the house.
540/1996.
It is stated that the Court granted an interim order initially in favour of the respondents but ultimately the same was vacated and the said order was companyfirmed in appeal holding that there was numberprima facie proof of tenancy.
P.C. on 9.5.1993 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum seeking restoration of possession of the of 2500 Sq.
Against the order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26.4.1996 the petitioner filed writ petition bearing No.
She says that the first respondent approached her in November, 1991 for temporary accommodation to stay for two or three months Subsequently, the second respondent, who is said to be the husband of the 1st respondent joined her and both of them were number willing to vacate premises i.e. the 2500 Sq.
It is said that the respondents filed writ petition No.
973/1993 on 27.7.1993 for quashing the section 145 criminal proceedings launched by the petitioner but the said writ petition was dismissed.
346/1992 by the respondents claiming tenancy rights on the basis of alleged tenancy agreement and cheques on which the signatures of the petitioner were allegedly forged.
