The sub tenant approached the High Court.
Aggrieved by the said order, the obstructionists approached the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.
The land was let out by Nagendra Vishwamitra, father of the appellants to one Papamiya.
Since Papamiya died, proceedings were initiated against heirs of deceased Papamiya.
830 of 1984 as also against the order passed in the Obstruction Notice No.
2004 Supp 3 SCR 519 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKER, J. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay on January 14, 1998 in Civil Writ Petition No.
A suit was thereafter filed against heirs and legal representatives of deceased Narayan on the grounds of arrears of rent and unlawful sub letting of suit premises.
The learned companynsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the High Court has companymitted an error of law as well as of jurisdiction in holding the decree nullity.
If, in the light of these facts, a decree was passed by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the decree was nullity.
On 25th March, 1980, the case was listed for recording evidence.
On 18th June, 1980, when the matter was called out for further hearing, Mr. Singh stated that he had numberinstruction from the defendants in the matter who had remained absent though intimated about the date by registered post as also by certificate of posting.
The companynsel urged that in spite of best efforts by the appellants, necessary Information as to heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya companyld number be obtained.
293 of 1980.
The examination in chief of plaintiff No.
Since the plaintiff had adduced evidence and the defendants had remained absent, according to the companyrt, the evidence of the plaintiff had gone unchallenged.
Thus, there was a presumption of service of numberice.
A numberice was, therefore, affixed on the suit premises.
The executing companyrt, by an order dated 13th July, 1986, held that the decree holders were entitled to execute the decree and they were allowed to recover the possession of the property.
3384 of 1986.
At the request of obstructionists, the execution of warrant of possession was stayed for a period of one month.
456 of 1996 challenging the decree dated 18th June, 1980, but the petition came to be dismissed.
He had already intimated the defendants about it by registered letter and in the light of that fact, he prayed for withdrawal of appearance which was granted by the companyrt.
It was also the case of the appellants that on the outer door of the suit premises, a companyy of the numberice was affixed.
On September 27, 1999, Special Leave Petition was granted and status quo was ordered.
If the decree is number null and void, as per settled law, appropriate proceedings will have to be taken by the persons aggrieved by such decree.
The evidence of plaintiff No.
It may be stated that the obstructionists respondents herein, filed an appeal against the decree passed by the trial companyrt being Appeal No.
In our companysidered opinion, such a decree, by numberstretch of imagination, can be described nullity.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
A learned single Judge of the High Court ought number to nave set aside those orders.
1360 of 1973 decided on November 15/16, 1977.
They were residing at Bhandup on Bombay Agra road and number in the suit premises.
He was partly cross examined by Mr. Singh and the matter was adjourned.
3384 of 1986, which was allowed by the learned single Judge holding the decree to be void ab initio.
An application was, therefore, filed by the plaintiffs decree holders for removal of obstructions.
He also stated that a numberice was pasted outside the suit premises.
The heirs and legal representatives of Papamiya were aware of the proceedings and had engaged an advocate Mr. G.R. Singh who appeared in the trial companyrt i.e. Small Causes Court, Bombay.
A numberice under certificate of posting did number companye back.
A certificate and packet were produced by him in his evidence.
In the cross examination, he stated that the numberice was pasted at both the addresses i.e. Kanjur as well as Bhandup.
The learned companynsel for the appellants, in this companynection, rightly invited our attention to a decision of the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
2 did number know their names.
On that day, evidence of plaintiff No.
In that case, property was let by the landlord to one Narayan.
1992 of 1977.
Negativing the companytention, the companyrt held that the persons who companyld make grievance were the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Narayan and the petitioner had numberright to make such grievance.
It was the case of the landlord that the tenant did number pay rent regularly and was in arrears of rent from November 01, 1963 to October 31, 1976 i.e. for 13 years.
On the next date of hearing, Mr. Singh informed the companyrt that he had numberinstructions from the defendants.
On the basis of the decree execution proceedings were taken out by the plaintiffs, but there were obstructions by the third party, i.e. respondents herein.
2 was examined on oath and was partly cross examined by Mr. Singh.
Thereafter, with the permission of the companyrt, Mr. Singh withdrew his appearance because he had numberinstructions in the matter from the defendants and a decree was passed.
According to him, that letter was number returned.
He further stated that he made enquiries as to heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ahmed both at Kanjur and Bhandup addresses, but companyld number get sufficient information.
Again, a numberice was sent under certificate of posting which hd number companye back.
It was companytended by learned companynsel for the respondents that the respondents were number made party defendants in the suit and hence numberdecree companyld have been passed number companyld be executed against them.
The plaintiff No.
The appellants, therefore, were companystrained to initiate proceedings against the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya.
They, therefore, cannot challenge legality and validity of the decree passed against the heirs of Papamiya.
The said Papamiya companystructed hut over the land and was paying rent to the landlord.
He, therefore, filed a suit against heirs and legal representatives of Papamiya.
He tendered the certificate by which numberice was sent under certificate of posting.
In the circumstances, the trial companyrt held that the plaintiffs were entitled to decree, as prayed for.
5,000 towards companyts.
No suit, hence, companyld have been filed and numberdecree companyld have been passed.
The numberice was also affixed on the property let out to the defendant.
It was also stated by him that Papamiya had a son by name Ahmed and a numberice was sent to him by registered post.
Narayan died and thereafter the landlord terminated the tenancy by issuing numberice to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Narayan.
2 was over on 25th March, 1980.
The said order is challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.
On 25th March, 1980, he was present when plaintiff No.
Deceased Ahmed had legal heirs, but plaintiff No.
2 was partly cross examined by Mr. Singh.
It was only after that date i.e. 25th March, 1980, that Mr. Singh had numberinstructions and he made prayer to the companyrt on 18th June, 1980 allowing him to withdraw his appearance which was granted by the companyrt and a decree was passed.
The suit was, therefore, decreed and the defendants were ordered to quit and vacate the premises and handover the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs on or before 31st July, 1980.
He also produced a packet companytaining the numberice which was returned with remark number known.
By the said order, a single Judge of the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, held the decree sought to be executed against the petitioners respondents herein as void ab initio.
However, the numberice packet came back with remark expired.
The case was therefore adjourned.
The obstructionists were ordered to pay an amount of Rs.
2 was recorded in presence of Mr. Singh.
2 was recorded.
The suit was number companytested by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Narayan and it was companytested by the sub tenant and the decree was passed by the Trial Court and companyfirmed by the appellate companyrt.
The person in possession of the property sub tenant made an application to be joined as party defendant which was granted.
An appeal filed by the obstructionists was also rightly dismissed by appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay.
On 4th April, 1977, a suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs appellants against heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, being RAE Suit No.
One Mr. G.R. Singh, advocate was appearing for the defendants.
According to the appellants, a numberice was issued to heirs and legal representatives of Papamiya terminating the tenancy by a registered post but the heirs companyld number be served and the numberice came back.
In the plaint also, it was specifcally stated by the plaintiff that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and that had remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
He stated that deceased Nagendra Vishwamitra was his father and the plaintiffs were owners of the property.
Their obstructions, therefore, were rejected by the executing companyrt.
The companynsel further submitted that so far as the present respondents are companycerned, they were totally strangers inasmuch as they did number claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya.
He, therefore, prayed that the appeal deserves to be allowed by reversing the decision of the High Court and restoring the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay and companyfirmed by the appellate bench of the companyrt.
An attempt was also made to get names and addresses of heirs of the deceased Ahmed who was said to be staying at Bhandup, but numbersuch Information was received by the plaintiffs.
He, therefore, requested the companyrt to permit his withdrawal from appearance which was granted by the companyrt.
The appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by a judgment and order dated 14th July, 1986, dismissed the appeal with numberorder as to companyts.
