Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Draft NM in LCSU 115719
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO.1157 OF 2019.
(CNR NO.MHCC010044612019)
Anantrai Manilal Sheth & Ors. }...PLAINTIFFS.
Versus
Anil Shankarrao Chavan & Ors. }...DEFENDANTS.
Shri.B.A.Singh, learned advocate for the plaintiffs.
Shri.Tiwari, learned advocate for defendant Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI. P.P.RAJVAIDYA (C.R.NO.12)
O R A L O R D E R
(Delivered on 02/05/2019)
1. Read the draft Notice of Motion and affidavit filed in
support of it. Leave to register the Notice of Motion is granted. Heard
learned Shri.B.A.Singh, advocate for the plaintiffs & learned Shri.Y.K.
Tiwari, advocate for defendant Nos.1 to 4. None appeared for
defendant Nos. 5 & 6. Perused the entire record.
2. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs are
the lawful tenants of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the flat situated
in demolished building, plaintiffs are entitled for alternate permanent
accommodation in lieu of said flat & defendant Nos.1 to 4 have started
construction of new building by illegally demolishing the old building
without reserving any flat for plaintiffs in newly constructed building.
He argued that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not followed the guidelines
issued for providing permanent alternate accommodation to the
occupants in the building & if the construction of the suit building is
completed, the lawful rights of the plaintiffs will be violated hence, it is
necessary to restrain the defendants from completing the further
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Draft NM in LCSU 115719
construction of suit building and to direct those defendants to retain
one flat for the plaintiff in the newly constructed building.
3. As against this, learned advocate for defendant Nos.1 to 4
argued that this court had refused to grant interim injunction in favour
of plaintiffs in previously instituted suit and hence, plaintiffs have
unconditionally withdrawn said earlier suit, jurisdiction of this court is
barred under Section 41 of PSCC Act and under Section 42 of the Slum
Act hence, any relief cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. He
argued that defendant Nos.1 to 4 had called upon the plaintiffs to
produce documents to show their tenancy rights in the flat in old suit
building but instead of producing any documents, plaintiffs have
approached this court as plaintiffs do not have any documents to show
that they were tenants of any flat in of old suit building. He argued that
plaintiffs have not come before the court with clean hands hence,
plaintiffs are not entitled for any adinterim relief.
4. Admittedly, plaintiffs had file a suit previously in year 2014
wherein, interim relief was not granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
Admittedly, plaintiffs have thereafter withdrawn the said suit
unconditionally. It appears from the averments of plaint and affidavit
filed in support of Notice of Motion that old building has been
demolished way back in or about year 2014. It also does not appear to
be in dispute that commencement certificate has been issued for
construction of the suit building. Perusal of the copies of the documents
produced on record by the plaintiffs primafacie show that directions are
issued to accommodate all the tenants in old building before its
demolition, to provide transit accommodations to those tenants and to
pay them the amount of corpus fund however, the material on record
primafacie shows that the suit building has been demolished way back
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Draft NM in LCSU 115719
in year 2014. The work of construction is in progress and it cannot be
stalled. Plaintiffs can very well prove their entitlement for permanent
alternate accommodation in newly constructed building by producing
on record appropriate material during trial of the suit. It is not
necessary for that purpose to stall the further construction of new
building. Having regards to those things and the fact that the plaintiffs
are aware of the process undertaken by defendant Nos.1 to 4 to effect
construction of new building since last at least more than 23 years, I
hold that plaintiffs are not entitled for any adinterim relief. It is
necessary to give opportunity to the defendants to file their reply to the
Notice of Motion for deciding the Notice of Motion properly. For these
reasons, an order.
O R D E R
Adinterim relief is refused.
Defendants shall file their reply to the Notice of Motion on
next date.
Date: 03/05/2019. (P.P.RAJVAIDYA)
Dictated on : 03/05/2019. Judge, C.R.No.12,
Transcribed on : 03/05/2019. City Civil Court,
Checked on : 03/05/2019. Gr.Bombay.
Signed on : 03/05/2019.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Draft NM in LCSU 115719
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06/05/2019 at 11.30 a.m. Mrs. Rupali S. Bhor
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI.P.P.RAJVAIDYA (CR No.12)
Date of pronouncement of Order 03/05/2019
Order signed by P.O. on 03/05/2019
Order uploaded on 06/05/2019
-- 4 of 4 --