Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Draft NM in LC Suit 115819
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI	.
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO.1158 OF 2019.
(CNR NO.MHCC010045582019)
Jitendra Jayantilal Shah }...PLAINTIFF.
Versus
Shri Anil Shankarrao Chawan and Ors. }...DEFENDANTS.
Shri.B.A.Singh, learned advocate for the plaintiff.
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 03/05/2019)
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 plaintiff & 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 plaintiff argued that plaintiff is
the lawful tenant of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the flat situated
in the demolished building, plaintiff is 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 plaintiff 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 old building & if the construction of the suit building is
completed, the lawful rights of the plaintiff will be violated hence, it is
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Draft NM in LC Suit 115819
necessary to restrain the defendants from completing the further
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 plaintiff in previously instituted suit and hence, plaintiff has
unconditionally withdrawn said earlier suit, jurisdiction of this court is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 plaintiff. He
argued that defendant Nos.1 to 4 had called upon the plaintiff to
produce documents to show his tenancy rights in the flat in old suit
building but instead of producing any documents, plaintiff has
approached this court as plaintiff does not have any documents to show
that he was tenant of any flat in of old suit building. He argued that
plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands hence, plaintiff
is not entitled for any adinterim relief.
4. Admittedly, plaintiff had file a suit previously in year 2014
wherein, interim relief was not granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Admittedly, plaintiff has thereafter withdrawn 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 plaintiff primafacie show that directions are issued to accommodate
all the tenants in old building before its demolition, to provide transit
accommodations to those tenants & to pay them the amounts of corpus
fund however, the material on record primafacie shows that the suit
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Draft NM in LC Suit 115819
building has been demolished way back in year 2014. The work of
construction is in progress and it cannot be stalled. Plaintiff can very
well prove his 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 plaintiff is 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 plaintiff is not entitled for any ad
interim 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 LC Suit 115819
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 --