Setting aside an order of a subordinate court,the Bombay High Court earlier this month restored the water and electricity supply to the occupants of a flat in Girgaum and observed that even if their tenancy was disputed,they cannot be dispossessed without following the procedure under the law. Hansa Dave (65) and her son Rajesh (40),who occupied a 6th-floor house in Mani Bhuvan,Girgaum,had moved the High Court challenging an order of an appellate bench of the Small Causes Court that had,on August 20,reversed an earlier order of the Small Causes Court,saying that they could get independent supply of electricity and water,but rejected their plea for its restoration. The High Courts order states that the mother-son duo were the heirs of Icchashanakar Dave,who was given the tenement as a gratuitous licensee in 1980. They are the daughter-in-law and grandson of Icchashankar,who passed away in 2001. Earlier this year,Harihar Mehta,the landlord,had filed a suit against Daves disputing their tenancy. He sought their ouster from the flat stating that they were gratuitous licensees and cannot be equated with tenants or sub-tenants. The Daves told the court that Mehta had locked the water tank from where they used to get water. Mehta,however,contended that they were stealing water from the tank on the terrace which is why he had locked it. The appellate bench of the Small Causes Court had held that it was a fact that the Daves were in possession of the flat and although Mehta had not disputed the possession,it is the character of the possession that he had disputed. Mehta also alleged that Rajesh had been arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Squad and that had caused annoyance and nuisance to him. Justice G S Godbole,however,observed,that if the Daves were in possession of the flat then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water,which is an absolutely bare necessity and essential for basic day-to-day life in the modern world. Setting aside the appellate benchs order,the HC said the bench could not have overlooked the fact that the tenancy dispute had not yet been decided and the alleged wrongful occupation by the Daves was yet to be proved. The court also stated,In this situation,the law is well established,that a person in possession of immovable property,even when his possession is wrongful,cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure prescribed by law. Restraining Mehta from dispossessing the Daves,the court permitted the Daves to get independent electricity and water connection from any service provider and the BMC respectively. The court said they could obtain the connections without a No-Objection Certificate from their landlord.
