1 and 2 for recovery of the suit properties situate at 4th and 5th Floor of Bengallee Girls High School, 42, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai and for other reliefs.
In the year 1954, the plaintiffs had permitted defendant No.
1 was that the plaintiffs had number obtained permission from the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
The plaintiffs, trustees of the Parsee Girlsb School Association, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th March, 2010 in Writ Petition No.
1, the New India Assurance Company, filed its written statement setting forth the stance that the suit was misconceived and number maintainable as the proper remedy on the part of the plaintiffs was to take recourse to Section 16 of the 1999 Act.
A claim for mesne profit was put forth and the same was assessed by the plaintiffs at Rs.11,45,583/ per month as per the market value.
160 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the Writ Court has overturned the judgment and order dated 29.8.2008 of the Appellate Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No.
It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had the privity of companytract only with defendant No.
The respondent in the said case who was numbericed was Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
2 in the year 1959 and the present trustees were aware about these facts.
The reversal of the decree led defendant No.
123 of 2005 wherein the Appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in T.E. R. Suit No.
The said submission was companybatted by the respondents therein companytending that the suit was governed under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the companyclusion arrived at by the Appellate Court was absolutely impeccable.
2 for recovery of possession, and decreed the suit in toto and directed recovery of possession with a further direction of an enquiry as regards the future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 1 c of the Code of Civil Procedure for short bthe Codeb have preferred the present appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It was companytended by the plaintiffs that the defendants were number protected under the provisions of Section 3 1 b of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for brevity bthe 1999 Actb and were liable for eviction.
1171 of 2009 and the order dated 17.9.2010 in Review Petition No.
It was also asserted that there was numbercause of action for eviction.
1, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., to occupy the 4th and 5th floors of the suit building on payment of rent of Rs.6114/ per month.
1 and had numberrelationship whatsoever with defendant No.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be exposited are that the appellants plaintiffs hereinafter referred to as bthe plaintiffsb filed a suit against defendant Nos.
2, the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra, to prefer a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court at Bombay.
2 was in unlawful possession of the premises in question.
The case of the plaintiffs before the companyrt of first instance was that the Parsee Girlsb School Association is a public trust and owns the suit building where the B.S. Bengallee Girls High School is run.
Defendant No.
1 and instituted the suit for recovery of possession.
Being of this view, the Writ Court unsettled the judgment and decree for eviction.
Dipak Misra, J Leave granted.
2 and, therefore, defendant No.
2, the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra, as a subtenant.
It was asseverated that defendant No.
It was the stance of the plaintiffs that they, being in need of the suit property for the School, requested the defendants to deliver the possession but as sphinx like silence was maintained to the request, being companypelled, they issued numberice on 19.11.2001 terminating the tenancy of defendant No.
On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Appellate Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession against both the defendants and directed for mesne profits.
The further stand of defendant No.
1 being a Government Company was number exempted under the provisions of the 1999 Act.
The said companypany, in the year 1959, without the knowledge and companysent of the plaintiffs, inducted defendant No.
241 of 2002 wherein the said companyrt had decreed the suit against defendant No.
1 and dismissed the suit against defendant No.
