Dismissing a suit filed by Rege (also known as Bapusaheb) and four other trustees, Justice D G Deshpande has ruled that the flat, at 42, Keluskar Road, Shivaji Park, never belonged to the `trust'. Hence, Rege or the other trustees, ``who are merely nodding at the behest of Bapusaheb'', have no right to forcibly evict Mahesh Shivram Rege. ``It is nothing but a concocted and highly suspicious story to suit the intention of plaintiff Bapusaheb to oust defendant Mahesh and label him a trespasser upon the flat,'' the court said.

With this verdict, the 15-year-old legal battle waged by Bapusaheb over the ownership of the Dadar flat comes to end. Bapusaheb had claimed that before Mahesh encroached on the flat, the managingcommittee had rented out the premises to himself. He also claimed that the committee had given him rights to keep Mahesh away from the property. However, Justice Deshpande has stated that even if it is established that Mahesh forcibly entered the Dadar flat in February 1984, this act of his is a rightful assertion over the ancestral property.

Justice Deshpande pointed out that this suit is basically a litigation between two brothers. It is also noteworthy that the plaintiff, Bapusaheb, personally deposed to give evidence in court. While the property is claimed to be owned by the trust, the suit itself was not filed in the trust's name. Moreover, no explanation was offered as to why the suit was filed in the names of five individual trustees.

The judge has observed that if the plaintiffs really apprehended Mahesh Rege's entry to the flat, they could have appointed armed guards. Instead they filed this suit with most unbelievable details, the judge stated.

In 1940, the late Dadasaheb Rege (alias S D Rege)started the Balmohan School on the ground and first floors of the building which also houses the controversial Shivaji Park flat. The flat was rented by him and the entire property, including the tenanted flat, was included in a trust in 1955.

When Dadasaheb died in June 1982, Bapusaheb moved into the flat. Bapusaheb claimed that his brother had by then already separated from the joint family and was residing elsewhere. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that the flat belongs to the trust (in effect Bapusaheb), which pays rent to landlord Durgaprasad Parasurampuria.

However, the court has ruled that the property registered by Dadasaheb Rege with the Charity Commissioner does not include the Dadar flat. Moreover, a rented flat cannot be registered in the name of a trust, the ruling said.

Most interestingly, the court also pointed out that Bapusaheb has failed to prove the strained relations between Mahesh and Dadasaheb Rege. Instead of producing a family member to prove this, Bapusaheb produced a peon ofthe Balmohan School to support his theory. The judge said the evidence of a peon speaks for itself.