1/5

SMSCT/558/2014

ORDER

ORDERBELOWEXH.6INH.R.P.SUITNO.558/2014.

Mr.N.S.Tahilramani,LearnedAdvocatefortheplaintiffs.
Mr.G.Y.Pathan,LearnedAdvocateforthedefendant.
Coram:Mr.C.S.Adhyaru,Judge.

[1]...

Theplaintiffshaveinstitutedthissuitagainstthe
defendantandhaveprayedforinterimreliefintermsof
para23(i)ifthisapplication.Thatasthisapplication
at Exh.6 is part and partial of this order, I do not
reiterate, for the sake of brevity, contents of this
application.

[2]...

Theplaintiffshaveprayedforadinterimreliefin
terms of para23(i) of Exh.6, wherein, the plaintiffs
have prayed that to restrain the defendant, their
agents, servants, employees, assigns, labourers,
administrators and legal heirs not to take forceful
possessionofthesuitpremiseswithoutfollowingdue
processoflawdescribeinpara1oftheplaint.

[3]...

That on service of the summons, the defendant

has appeared through hisLearnedAdvocate andhas
filed reply vide Exh.19 wherein, the defendant has

2/5

categorically denied almost all the facts of the

plaintiff'sapplicationandfurtherstatedthatthesuit
of the plaintiffs is false, fabricated and got up and
withoutcauseofactiontherefore,thissuitaswellas
interimapplicationrequirestobedismissed.
[4]...

Thatdecidingtheapplicationthefollowingissues
arearosedformyconsideration.
ISSUES
1.

Whether plaintiffs prove that they have prima

faciecase?

2.

Whether plaintiffs prove that balance of

convenienceisintheirfavour?

3.

Whether plaintiffs prove that they have to face

irreparableinjuries?

4.
[5]...

Whatorder?
Myfindingsfortheaboveissueswithreasonsare

asunder:

[6]...

1.

Inthenegative.

2.

Inthenegative.

3.

Inthenegative.

4.

Asperfinalorder.
REASONS

Thatalltheseissuesareinterconnectedandthe
discussioninrespectofthesame,Iassignmyreasons
foralltheseissuestogether.

3/5

IssueNos.1to3.
The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for
declaration and perpetual injunction and contended
thattheplaintiffsarelegalheirsofdeceased Shaikh
AbdullabhaiSiddikbhai;theplaintiffsareinpossession
ofthedemisedpremises;theplaintiffshaveproduced
the rent receipts; the defendant failed to establish,
primafacie, the grounds of alternative suitable
accommodation and when the possession with the
plaintiffs is requires to protected till final disposal of
thesuit. Thatthedefendanthascontendedthatthe
plaintiffsfailedtoshowtherelationshipswithdeceased
AbdullabhaiSiddikbhaiandinviewthiswhenShaikh
AbdulabhaiandShaikhAhmedabhaibotharedifferent
entity,thereisnorelationshipoflandlordandtenant,
theplaintiffisusingthepremisesonlyforthepurpose
of keeping livestock and when primafacie the
plaintiffs failed to prove relationship of landlord and
tenant,thesuitaswellasthisinjunctionapplication
requirestobedismissedwithcost.
Thattheplaintiffshavereliedupondocumentary
evidenceproducedvidemark4/1to4/8,wherein,tax
billsandlightbillisinthenameofAbdullabhaithatis
the original tenant. Thatthe election card produced
videmark4/3isbearingaddressof1366,Morkasvad,
Mirzapur Shahpur, Ahmedabad, whereas the plaintiff
isclaimingtenancyrightsoverthepremisessituatedat

4/5

1367, Morkasvad, Ahmedabad. That the APL card of

plaintiffno.2isalsooftheaddressat1367,themoney
order slips were shown the name of Rukaiyabibi
Ismailbhai as "Payee". That the defendant has
contendedthattheplaintiffshavesuppressedmaterial
factsandinviewofthis,thesuitisfabricatedandgot
upandrequirestobedismissed. Thatadmittedlythe
demised premises is rented to some Shaikh
Abdullabhai Siddikbhai who expired on 26/06/2002
but, as per the admission of the plaintiffs in their
pleadings, the primafacie which has been let to the
deceased Adhullabhai is a premises namely, 1367,
Mokarsvad,Mirzapurwhereas,asperthedocumentary
evidence produced by the plaintiffs themselves, the
plaintiffsareresidingatthepremisessituatedat1366,
Morkasvad,henceinmyhumbleopinion,theplaintiffs,
primafacie,failedtoprovetherelationshipoflandlord
and tenant and in view of this, if the injunction as
prayedforgrantinginfavouroftheplaintiff,itisthe
defendantwhohastofaceirreparableinjuryandthe
scaleofbalanceofconvenienceisalsotillhisfavourof
thedefendantratherthantheplaintiffs,hence,Ipass
the following order in respect of this application and
decidetheissueno.4accordingly:
:ORDER:
This application at Exh.6 of plaintiffs is hereby
rejected.
The ad interim relief granted, if any, at the time of

5/5

institution of the suit, is hereby discontinued from

today.
Costincause.
Pronounced in the open Court today i.e.21st day of
April,2015.

Date:21.04.2015
Place:Ahmedabad

I.R.Rajput

(ChirayuSanatkumarAdhyaru)
Judges
UICNo.GJ00707
SmallCauseCourtNo.3
Ahmedabad.