JUDGMENT
Pratibha Upasani, J. (Chairperson)
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/interveners being aggrieved by the order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai on exhibit No. 37 in Original Application No. 155 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/interveners in which they had prayed that they be declared as legal owners of the property, which is the subject-matter of the Original Application No. 155 of 2002.
2. I have heard Ms. Shaikh for the appellants, Mr. Nagori for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, so also Mr. Sawant for the respondent No. 3. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity at all in the impugned order.
3. It appears that the appellants were allowed to intervene during the pendency of the Original Application being Original Application No. 155 of 2002. The interveners were praying that they be declared as legal owners of the property in question. The defendant No. I had submitted that they were merely tenants of the said property and what was mortgaged was their tenancy rights and not the ownership of the land. On this background, the learned Presiding Officer had ordered that the applicant Bank was not entitled to enforce the mortgage by selling the property in question and that the mortgage was restricted to the tenancy rights and same could be enforced only to that extent without affecting the ownership rights of the property. This was indeed sufficient to give protection to the owners of the land in question. The interveners were praying that they be declared as legal owners of the property. The learned Presiding Officer observed that the D.R.T. had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title and, therefore, the interveners were at liberty to move the appropriate Court for declaration of their title. I find nothing wrong with this observation. Indeed the D.R.T. has got no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title. Only Civil Court of competent jurisdiction can do that.
Another development was that the Original Application itself came to an end. The parties filed consent terms and the Original Application was accordingly disposed of. Therefore, this prayer of the interveners seeking declaration from the Presiding Officer and any discussion with respect to that, was redundant. After filing of the consent terms, the applicant Bank had nothing to recover from the defendant No. 1 and, therefore, the question of the Bank exercising its charge over the said property would not arise at all.
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my view, no interference in the impugned order is called for. I am told across the bar that the review application was filed by the appellants/interveners seeking review of the order passed on 15th October, 2004, which is not impugned in this appeal. That review application was also disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer on 1st June, 2005. Therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 393/2004 is dismissed.