During the pendency of the aforementioned suit, Dinshaw agreed to surrender the tenancy in respect of the suit premises in favour of BMC and the Corporation in exchange granted a lease of sixty years on a part of the suit premises, being land admeasuring 1152 sq mts.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments passed by the Trial Court, the respondents preferred two separate appeals being First Appeal No.970 of 1995 filed against order in Long Cause Suit No.
The City Civil Court dismissed both the suits by two separate judgments.
In response to the eviction numberices, the legal heirs and representatives of Bomanji objected to the same but they companysented to the tenancy being transferred in the name of Dinshaw Irani original defendant No.
The Will was probated with companysent of all the legal heirs and Daulatbai had rights over the suit premises and the tenancy rights which, as claimed, cannot be bequeathed as per law.
of the suit premises to the Corporation by retaining the remaining 2500 sq.
bearing CS No.
Dissatisfied with this order, the plaintiffs preferred Appeal against Order A.O. No.438/1988 before the High Court and the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.1481 of 1988 passed an order dated April 20, 1988 allowing the defendants to proceed with the companystruction work subject to the companydition that during the pendency of the appeal and ninety days after the defendants were to retain five flats and rights arising therefrom.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, these appeals have been filed before us.
The BMC being defendant No.1 in both the suits also filed its written statement in Long Cause Suit No.1914 of 1983 stating that the tenancy was transferred in the name of Dinshaw Irani on the basis of the documents produced by him in support of the same being the Wills of deceased Bomanji and Daulatbai the partnership deed between Daulatbai and Dinshaw Irani and the companysent letter given by the other sons of Bomanji and Daulatbai .
Respondent No.1 son and legal heir of deceased Ardeshir Irani and respondent No.5 again objected to the transfer of tenancy in the name of Dinshaw Irani.
By letter dated September 18, 1981, BMC transferred the tenancies in favour of Dinshaw, subject to certain companyditions including that a portion of land should be surrendered to BMC, which was objected to by respondent No.5 Peshotan, son of Homi Irani .
Dinshaw Irani filed written statements in both the suits and denied the averments in the plaints and claimed that he alone was the tenant of the suit premises and had carried out the business of nursery florist till his mothers lifetime and thereafter he was entitled to the tenancy in light of the Wills of deceased Bomanji and Daulatbai.
Bomanji Irani died on September 27, 1946 leaving behind his wife Daulatbai five sons, namely 1 Ardeshir 2 Jehangir 3 Framroze 4 Dinshaw and 5 Homi and three daughters, namely 1 Ketayun 2 Homai and 3 Nargis.
The High Court further directed the defendants to immediately place the plaintiffs in possession of the five flats which were kept reserved by virtue of the interim orders passed by the High Court from time to time and the stay on the Bombay Municipal Corporation regarding the development of the remaining property was directed to be vacated.
The BMC ignored the objection raised and passed an eviction order dated October 24, 1963 against the heirs and legal representatives of Bomanji.
1877 of 1985.
During the pendency of the said suit, Dinshaw Irani expired on December 2, 1988.
Against the said eviction order passed by the BMC, the heirs and legal representatives of Bomanji jointly filed a suit as joint tenants, being Suit No.5451/1963.
However, the said Will was number probated.
known as Irani Wadi, situated at Mazgaon, Mumbai.
The High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated September 30, 2005, allowed both the first appeals and held that the original plaintiffs respondents herein were joint tenants with original defendant No.2 appellant herein companysequently, the surrender of tenancy by defendant No.2 in favour of BMC was illegal and the transfer of tenancy by BMC in the name of defendant No.2 was incorrect, void and number binding upon the plaintiffs.
in September, 1984.
Daulatbai executed a Will on January 2, 1949 in favour of her son Dinshaw who was the original defendant No.2.
Consequently, on the request of Dinshaw Irani the tenancy in respect of Malis quarters, Nursery garden, florist shop and farm house was transferred in favour of Dinshaw Irani.
Daulatbai died during the pendency of this suit.
These letters brought on record clearly indicate that numberdue process was followed wherein objections were sought after the transfer and numberproper transfer was made.
Municipal Commissioner, Shri.
Admittedly, Dinshaw Irani began companystruction on the said plot of land admeasuring 1152 sq mts.
Bomanji executed a Will dated October 15, 1934 in favour of his children and wife Daulatbai, appointing Daulatbai as a residuary legatee of the Will.
Dinshaw Irani submitted a proposal to the BMC for handing over 4000 sq.
On February 3, 1962 Daulatbai addressed a letter to the BMC requesting for transfer of rent bills in the name of her son Dinshaw original defendant No.
1914 of 1983 and First Appeal No.1075 of 1995 filed against Long Cause Suit No.
The Trial Court on April 11, 1988 disposed of the Notice of Motions and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of certain parts of the bungalow which was occupied by them.
Resultantly, the judgments and orders of the Trial Court were set aside and the reliefs prayed for in the suits filed by the plaintiffs were allowed by the High Court.
In a letter dated February 2, 1981, BMC has accepted the existence of letter dated December 22, 1980.
970/1995 with First Appeal No.1075/1995 passed by the High Court of Bombay.
The tenancy was transferred by BMC by means of a letter dated September 18, 1981 and the same was done without inviting any objections for companysidering the earlier letter of objection.
The plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, sought certain interim reliefs by filing Notice of Motions in both the long cause suits.
The High Court allowed both these appeals set aside the judgments and decree passed by the Trial Court in both the suits and decreed both the suits, i.e., Long Cause Suit No.1914 of 1983 as well as Long Cause Suit No.1877 of 1985 in terms of the prayers.
That in case of BMCs inability to honour the said resolution dated September 28, 1983, the entire property i.e. 5950 sq.
Furthermore, objections were again raised by respondent No.5 by means of letter dated October 22, 1981 and the Senior Ward Officer by means of letter dated February 2, 1982 admitted that since earlier letter of objections was number received by the companycerned officer, they wanted a companyy of the same letter of objections to decide the case on merits.
366 67 Part Mazgaon and on November 30, 1983 lease deed of the said plot in favour of Dinshaw Irani was executed.
On July 11, 1977 the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the order passed by the BMC terminating the tenancy was set aside.
for himself.
This premises companyprised of residential Bungalow, open land used for Nursery, and Malis quarters, hereinafter referred to as the suit premises.
The respondents legal heirs of Homi and Ardeshir Irani on companying to know about the transfer of tenancy of the suit premises, issued a numberice dated October 28, 1982 under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 hereinafter referred to as the Act and subsequently on March 23, 1983, filed Long Cause Suit No.1914 of 1983 challenging transfer of tenancy before the City Civil Court at Bombay.
The then Bombay Municipal Corporation being Respondent No.6, hereinafter referred to as BMC acquired ownership rights in respect of the suit premises and on September 19, 1961 issued eviction numberices to the heirs and legal representatives of Bomanji, companyprising Daulatbai and five sons.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a suit being Long Cause Suit No.1877 of 1985 before the City Civil Court at Bombay, challenging the surrender of tenancy and the grant of said fresh lease in favour of Dinshaw Irani.
This letter created a belief that numbertransfer of tenancy had taken place which is further cemented by the letter dated February 25, 1982 addressed by the Dy.
However, the High Court directed appellants to handover possession of the five flats to respondent Nos.1 to 5.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated September 30, 2005 in First Appeal No.
He also stated in the proposal that as his two brothers do number want to move in with him, they should be provided with alternative accommodation.
While disposing of A.O. No.438 of 1988 on October 16, 1991, the High Court directed that both the suits be disposed by the Trial Court by April, 1992 that the restriction for creation of third party rights with respect to the five flats reserved be companytinued and the interim order in Notice of Motion No.1459 of 1985 restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit premises be companytinued.
The findings of the Trial Court in Long Cause Suit No.1914 of 1983 was that the plaintiffs failed to prove joint tenancy and therefore the transfer of rent bills in the name of defendant No.2 was number illegal.
