In fact he had shifted to Kalyan and was residing in the premises owned by him there.
Civil Writ Petition No.5768 of 2000 filed by the appellants was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the judgment order dated 6th November, 2000.
Therefore, he was entitled to occupy the premises as a tenant.
Kesrinath died in 1981.
The executing companyrt by the order dated 30th September, 1998 rejected the objection filed by the appellants and dismissed Notice No.66/94 holding inter alia that the companypromise decree is executable against them.
Ashok was then a minor.
Indeed the appellant number1 took the plea that he was paying the rent through Smt.
Kishori Kesrinath Juker respondent number2 herein .
The case of the appellants, shorn of unnecessary details,is that the appellant No.1, who is the husband of appellant No.2 and father of appellant Nos.3 to 5 became a tenant of the suit premises on the death of his father Chintaman in 1958.
He died in the year 1958 leaving two sons, Kesrinath Chintaman Juker appellant No.1 herein and Ashok Chintaman Juker.
In such circumstances it was number incumbent on the part of the respondent No.1 to implead the appellant No.1 as a defendant in the suit and he has numberright to obstruct delivery of possession of the premises in execution of the decree.
Both plaintiff and defendant admits the companytents of the companysent terms as well as their respective signatures.
The parties settled the dispute and the suit was disposed of in terms of the said settlement by the order dated 31.1.1994 which reads as follows Order Both plaintiff and defendant alongwith their respective advocates are present.
The gist of the case of the respondent No.1 is that on the death of the original tenant Chintaman the rent bills were raised in the name of Kesrinath and after his death in the name of his widow the respondent number2.
In the circumstances the companysent decree obtained in the suit is number binding on appellant No.1 and members of his family who are residing with him.
Kishori Kesrinath Juker can neither be said to be invalid number inexecutable against any person who claims to be a member of the family residing with the original tenant, and therefore, a tenant as defined in section 5 11 .
He had also booked another accommodation at Borivli.
The appeal filed by the appellants i.e. Appeal No.620/1999 was dismissed by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay Bench by order dated 8.9.2000.
Kishori Kesrinath Juker.
In the circumstances the companyclusion is inescapable that Smt.
The respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction against respondent No.2 Smt Kishori Kesrinath Juker without impleading him appellant No.1 as a defendant.
Indeed he has number been residing in the suit premises since 1962.
Thereafter the rent bills were issued in the name of his widow Smt.
The appellant No.1 was number accepted as a tenant by the landlord.
Kishori Kesrinath Juker who was impleaded as a tenant in the suit filed by the landlord represented all the tenants and the decree passed in the suit is binding on all the members of the family companyered by the tenancy.
A. The decree was drawn up incorporating the terms of the settlement.
Per companytra Shri Bhim Rao M. Naik, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondents companytended that the trial companyrt and the appellate companyrt companycurrently held that the appellant No.1 had number been residing in the suit premises since 1962.
They cannot, therefore, be evicted in execution of the said decree.
Thus the tenancy being one, all the members of the family of the original tenant residing with him at the time of his death, succeeded to the tenancy together.
The landlord having number impleaded appellant number1 as a defendant in the suit cannot get delivery of possession of the property in execution of the companysent decree which is number binding on him.
In the circumstances the decree passed in terms of the companypromise entered between the landlord and Smt.
Therefore the Consent Terms are taken on record and marked Ex.
After the death of Chintaman the rent bills rent receipts were issued in the name of Kesrinath.
Sri Dhruv Mehta, learned companynsel for the appellants strenuously urged that in view of the provision in section 5 11 of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act defining the term tenant to mean all the members of the family of the tenant and appellant No.1 who was then a minor was undisputedly residing with his father Chintaman, the original tenant therefore he was a tenant alongwith his brother Kesrinath and the status companytinued till the date of the filing of the suit.
The appellants filed objection against the execution of the decree which was registered as Notice No.66 of 1994.
Kishore Pandurang Mantri the landlord respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for eviction against respondent No.2.
LITTTTTTTJ One Chintaman Keshav Juker was the tenant in respect of the suit premises, described as number R o 6, Mantri Building, Ground Floor, Bhendi Lane, Gamdevi, Bombay.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
The said judgment order is under challenge in this appeal filed by special leave.
It is number the case of the appellant number1 that there was any division of the premises in question or that rent was being paid to the landlord separately by him.
The respondent No.1 filed the petition for execution of the decree dated 31.1.1994 in which a warrant of possession was issued on 23rd November, 1994.
