Mumbai: Trustees of the Currimbhoy Laljee Sajun Khoja Sanatorium reclaim property after a 47-year legal battle, following a City Civil Court ruling | Representational Image
Mumbai: Trustees of the Currimbhoy Laljee Sajun Khoja Sanatorium have recovered possession of two rooms from workers of the facility after a 47-year legal battle.
For nearly half a century the family of the workers refused to vacate the premises claiming they were tenants. Now the city civil court has allowed the suit filed in 1982 by the trustees and asked the family to move out.
As per the suit, in 1962 the trustees had allowed the manager of the trust, Rajabally Roopani Jalnawala, to stay in the premises as he was very poor. The trustees claimed that the premises was given on temporary basis and Jalnawala had given an undertaking that he would vacate the premises whenever asked.
The trustees claimed that the defendant had, in collusion with the Jamat Trust, been taking dishonest advantage from 1975 and continued to occupy suit premises without paying compensation, fees, water charges or electricity charges. This was in spite of direction given by charity commissioner, they said.
It was claimed that Jalnawala had stopped working for the trust in 1978. In 1980, the trust asked him to vacate the premises, but he failed to do so.
Later, after his death, the trustees claimed, his family members continued to occupy the premises claiming that they were legal tenants. Finally, the trustees filed a suit in 1982 against Jalnawala and his family. Against this, Jalnawala’s family claimed that they had paid rent in view of tenancy.
After hearing both the side, the court rejected the defence of Jalnawala’s family, and said that “the plaintiffs have successfully established that the defendants’ continued occupation of the premises became wrongful possession after the year 1978 when the original defendant’s services with the Jamat Trust were terminated and the plaintiffs issued a notice to vacate the premises in the year 1980.”
“The original defendant was servant of trust. The servant cannot claim adverse possession. Therefore, defendant cannot be said to be tenant of trust or owner,” it said.
