Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
MHCC010008052020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT, AT GREATER BOMBAY
ORDER IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 322 OF 2020
IN
SUIT NO.996 of 2020
Mr. Ratan Kumar Fateh Bahadur Singh ... Plaintiff
V/s
Shri Sankar Ranu Kanle …. Defendant.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
-: Appearances: -
The learned Adv. Richa Singh for the plaintiff.
The learned Adv. Rajendra Singh for the defendant.
ORAL ORDER
By this notice of motion, the plaintiff asked for the relief of
temporary injunction, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 thereby the defendant, be restrained from forcibly
dispossessing and or evicting and or removing the plaintiff from the suit
premises. The plaintiff not press prayer clause (b).
2. In short, it is contention of the plaintiff that, he is the
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
tenant of the defendant in respect of M/s. Aasha floor mill (now known
as ‘Mata Renuka floor Mill’), GNMCB-63, Ground floor, Balaji Nagar 90
ft. road, Khambadevi Road, Dharavi, Mumbai (herein after referred to
as “Suit premises”). The plaintiff is in lawful and settled possession of
the suit premises since date of inception of tenancy.
3. On 10/01/2020, the defendant with his associates had
approached to the plaintiff and directed him to vacate the suit premises
forthwith as he wants to give the suit premises to some third party. The
plaintiff requested the defendant that he is regularly paying royalty
charges and also willing to pay the same regularly, thus not to do such
illegal act. However, the defendant and his hirelings got annoyed and
threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit premises. Therefore,
the plaintiff approached to the local police station and narrated the
entire incident. But the police asked the plaintiff to approach the Civil
court for protection of his right, as it is a dispute in between the
landlord and tenant. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit and present
notice of motion for claiming the relief stated supra. Therefore, it may
kindly be allowed.
4. The defendant strongly opposed the notice of motion by
filing reply on affidavit. It is contended that, the father of the defendant
is the landlord of the suit premises. The suit is liable to be dismissed for
non-joinder of necessary party. The suit is not maintainable as no cause
of action arose in favour of the plaintiff so as to institute the suit. The
plaintiff approached to the Court by suppressing material facts.
5. It is further contended that, the father of the defendant is
old aged person of 79 years. Thus, he is unable to run the said floor
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
mill. Hence, he asked the defendant for running the floor mill.
Therefore, the defendant applied for the license in the name of ‘M/s.
Mata Renuka floor Mill’ instead of ‘M/s. Aasha Floor Mill’. The License
was issued for 1 year which was expired on 08/01/2020. The
defendants on behalf of his father is in possession of the suit premises.
The plaintiff was never and is not in possession of the suit premises.
Hence, question of granting relief of injunction to the plaintiff does not
arises.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. Following points arise for my determination to which I have
recorded my finding with reasons as follows:
Sr. No. Points Determination
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the relief of temporary injunction as
sought?
No
2. What order? As per final order.
REASONS
As to point no.1:
8. It is well settled that for claiming the relief of temporary
injunction, the plaintiff has to prove prima facie case in his favour;
balance of convenience lies in his favour and if injunction is refused,
then he would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in
terms of money.
9. It is contention of the plaintiff that, he being tenant of the
defendant running the floor mill. Now, the defendant is threatened to
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
dispossess him from the suit premises. Though he approached to the
police station, but of no use. The police asked him to approach to the
civil court for redressal of his grievances. Therefore, he has compelled to
file the present suit and to take out notice of motion.
10. Per contra, the defendant denied that the plaintiff was and
is ever in possession of the suit premises. It is contended that, the
father of the defendant and thereafter the defendant was in possession
of the suit premises.
11. Prima facie, it is a dispute pertaining to the tenancy
premises in between the tenant and landlord. Therefore, the plaintiff
has to approach the appropriate court for his grievances. Be that as it
may, upon perusal of documents, it reveals that license in respect of suit
premises was issued in the name of father of the defendant. Even the
permission under section 390 and 479 of BMC Act was issued in favour
of the father of the defendant. License of Floor Mill was also issued in
the name of father of the defendant. The electricity bills are in the
name of the father of the defendant. Therefore, prima facie no
document is filed on record to show that the plaintiff is in possession of
the suit premises. No tenancy agreement or any document filed on
record wherein it reveals that the plaintiff was put in possession of the
suit premises. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to made out prima facie
case in his favour. The plaintiff also failed to show that balance of
convenience lies in his favour. Therefore, question of causing any
irreparable loss to the plaintiff does not arises. Hence, my answer to
point no.1 is in the negative.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
As to point no.2:
12. In view of my above discussion, I pass the following order:
ORDER
Notice of motion no. 322 of 2020 stands rejected.
Notice of motion stands disposed off accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date:.12.10.2023 (C.R. No.1)
Dictated on : 12.10.2023
Transcribed on : 16.10.2023
Checked & Signed on : 17.10.2023
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Ord. in NM no 322 of 2020 , in Suit no. 996 of 2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE 17.10.2023 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G-I)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER 12.10.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 17.10.2023
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 17.10.2023
-- 6 of 6 --