OBSERVANCE OF TRIALS

OBSERVANCE OF CIVIL TRIAL

CASE 1: Court No.4, Small Causes Court, Mumbai
Stage: Cross-Examination Stage

This case related to eviction of tenant due to non-usage of premises for a continuous period of
more than six months. I witnessed the cross-examination stage wherein the son of the tenants
was being examined. The case of the landlord was that the tenants were living with his son in
Kandivali and the rented premises was not being occupied by anyone. The advocate for the
landlord or plaintiff highlighted that the only postal correspondence accepted by the defendant
between June 2012 and January 2013 was Exhibit 53 and all other letters were not received by
anyone. During cross examination, the plaintiff’s advocate asked if the witness’ parents were
residing with him in Kandivali since 2011 till date, to which he stated that this statement is false.
The next date of hearing was set to 17th October 2018.

CASE 2: Court No.2, Small Causes Court, Mumbai

Stage: Hearing for setting aside ex-parte decree

It was the hearing of an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree granted in favour of the
landlord. The advocate of the defendant argued that he could not appear before the Court as he
was hospitalized for a few days and prior to that his wife was also hospitalized. Although, he
produced evidence of his hospitalization, but as pointed out by the plaintiff’s lawyer, the date of
hearing was 23th May and on that day he was not hospitalized. As he could not place any
evidence of the hospitalization of his wife, the presiding judge, Justice G.J Patel dismissed his
application.

CASE 3: Court No.3, Small Causes Court, Mumbai

Stage: Cross-Examination Stage

This was a case for eviction of tenant due to non-payment of rent. During the cross-examination
stage, the advocate started with general questions as to inquiring about the amount of rent of the
premises, the year in which it was rented out to him etc. The witness or tenant stated that he was
not aware of the summons that he had been directed to pay rent for the premises. The plaintiff’s
advocate then showed a photograph of the notice placed outside the rent premises for non-
payment of rent and the evidence showing he had accepted it. Then, the advocate inquired as to
whether he had paid rent since the past seven years or not. He reluctantly accepted that he had
defaulted in rent payment after the death of the original landlord. All this was duly recorded and
would be used as testimony of witness at later stages of the trial. The next date of hearing was
fixed at 17th September, 2018.

CASE 4: Court No.7, Small Causes Court, Mumbai

Stage: Final Arguments Stage

In this case, the plaintiff landlord claimed that the defendant tenant was an ‘illegal occupant’ and
thus filed an application for his eviction. He argued that since the death of the tenant in 2006, he
did not know who was living in his premises and thus, the people residing there at that time were
not his tenants. The defendant produced evidence to show that the plaintiff had been collecting
rent from the tenant’s mother since 2006-2011. However, after 2011, the premises was occupied
by one Saif Khan, of which the landlord was not aware. The defendant provided evidence to
support that the landlord visited the premises every week and he had the knowledge that Saif
Khan was staying there. Another contention of landlord was that the tenants had caused
interference in their enjoyment to property. However, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any
evidence to that effect.

CASE 5: Appellate Court, Small Causes Court, Mumbai

Stage: Appellate Stage- Frame of Issues

This was a case in which appeal was filed by the tenant against decree for possession on ground
of arrears of rent. There were three grounds, firstly, tenant has deposited amount in Court for
arrears of rent, secondly, the rent demanded was exorbitant and much greater than the aunt
specified in the contract thirdly, notice of demand by only one main number. Evidence that was
shown in the previous stage are documents, for standard rent are the papers of transfer of the
property.
 CASE 6: High Court of Bombay
Stage: First Hearing Stage

In the case, the plaintiff had lent his house on rent to the defendant with a monthly rent of Rs.
1500/- to the defendants herein. The conditions attached were that the land will be used only for
the firm and not for any sub-let, part with possession and also there should be no damage to the
property. The kirayanama was drafted in 1989 and was attested by the notary, the following day,
a copy of which had been attached as an annexure for evidence. When the defendant was unable
to pay the rent, he was served with a notice because of which he promised to pay all the dues
within a month. However, he failed to pay the entire amount and thus the plaintiffs had
approached the Court for grant of relief. They argued that the defendant had opened his shops
somewhere else in Mumbai and was not practicing business at the plaintiff’s rented house.
Instead, he was using it for agricultural purposes which was not allowed or prohibited in the
kirayanama. Also, Plaintiff no.1 and 3 were both unemployed due to failure of their respective
businesses and required a new land to set up their new business. They planned to open offices on
that land, with an aluminum partitioning in between.

Thus, the basis or grounds were two: firstly, the non-payment of rent by the stipulated time after
the plaintiffs or landlords had provided with the bank account number for the same and secondly
and most importantly, there was bona-fide requirement for the plaintiffs as they were
unemployed and needed a land to work from. In fact, it was also affecting the mental condition
of one of the plaintiffs. The next date of hearing was 14th September 2018.
 OBSERVANCE OF CRIMINAL TRIAL
CASE 1: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Stage – Preliminary Hearing

The victim girl aged about 8 years was the daughter of the neighbour of the respondent. She
was a friend of respondent's niece and both the children used to play together. According to the
prosecution case, on the fateful day when respondent's niece and victim were playing in
respondent's drawing hall, and there was no one else in the house, the respondent sent his niece
outside. He bolted the door from inside and raped the victim. He threatened her not to disclose
this to anyone but she told her mother. On confrontation by the parents of the victim, the
respondent, assessing the situation, voluntarily confessed his crime. He admitted that he raped
the victim and also committed the same crime on earlier occasions with his niece and other
minor girls, but being a doctor he had been careful enough not to rupture their hymen. It took
3 days to register an FIR and later the police investigation culminated in the trial of the
respondent for an offence of rape. The trial court held that the prosecution against the respondent
was launched due to some enmity between the two families and that the prosecution did not
adduce any acceptable evidence for holding the respondent guilty of offence under S. 376 IPC. It
accordingly acquitted the respondent. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal before the
High Court. The case was adjourned for the next day.

CASE 2: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench

Stage – Evidence

The chief examination of the Prosecution Witness was being conducted. The advocate for the
accused could not do much. The judge conducted a video conferencing with the accused who
was in the jail. The accused requested the judge to assign him a new advocate as the present one
was not showing much interest.
 CASE 3: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Stage – Arguments, Final Hearing and Judgment

In this case, a 25 year old married law student was found hanging in her home during the
daylight hours. The parents of the women filed a case against the husband and the in laws for
murder. The accused stated that the husband of the deceased found her hanging from the fan. The
husband cut the duppatta using scissors to bring down the deceased who was found to be dead.
The accused stated that the deceased was suffering from depression owing to her mother’s death
and had penned suicidal thoughts in her diary which was produced before the court. The writing
had been verified by the handwriting expert. It was contested by the Prosecution that the
deceased did not commit suicide but was murdered by the husband and the in laws and they were
trying to portray it as a suicide. According to the prosecution, the deceased was first strangled by
the defendants and then a duppatta was wrapped in her neck and cut from the corner to show that
they had removed her from the fan by cutting it with scissors. No thread fibers of the duppata
were found on her neck. As per the FSL report, the cause of death was the fracture of the D3
bone which can be caused by too much pressure on the nape. It was argued that the deceased was
not happy in her matrimonial home and the in laws used to harass her. The suicide note produced
was an old diary writing torn away by the defendant. On examination of the photos of the neck
of the deceased, the judge felt that the marks were too thin to be of a dupaptta but seemed to be
of a wire. In another photo of the crime scene, a long extension cord wire could be seen lying
over the television head. On calculation of the height of the deceased along with the size of
duppata and the distance between the bed and the ceiling, it was found that the length was
insufficient to commit suicide. The court found the accused guilty of murder.
 CASE 4: High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Stage – Bail Application Arguments

The counsel for the accused sought bail and the court asked if there were any change in the
circumstances which warranted the granting of the 3rd bail application. The counsel could not
give any substantial arguments and the application was rejected.