Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order on Exh.1 ..1.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
ORDER ON EXH. 1
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 692 OF 2021
Mahadev Limbaji Sawant, ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Yegesh Jadhav & Ors., ...Defendant.
Appearance :
Mr. Jamkandi, Advocate for Plaintiff.
None for Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI AJIT N. MARE (C.R.No.3)
DATE : 8TH MARCH, 2021.
ORDER ON EXH. 1
Office has raised objection as to the valuation of the suit.
Advocate for the plaintiff has advanced submissions on the valuation of
the suit. Said objection is being decided by this order.
2. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff has
filed the suit in order to seek relief against premises which are given to
him during rehabilitation scheme. The relief sought by him are in
respect of statutory obligations of the defendants which they are bound
to perform during the rehabilitation scheme and therefore the suit is not
-- 1 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..2.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
susceptible monetary valuation. Therefore, according to him the suit of
present nature is rightly valued by the plaintiff in accordance with
Section 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.
3. Advocate for the plaintiff relied on Shri Rajaram Bhagwati
Tiwari And Ors V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,
2004 (3) Mh.L.J. 290.
4. The pleadings in the plaint are required to be considered to
decide what is the nature of present suit. The plaint asserts that, the
plaintiff was residing in a premises Room No. 314, Building No. T.T.1,
Vikroli Transit Camp, Mumbai, since July 2019 till one Yogesh Jadhav
i.e. defendant No. 1 committed trespass in said Room No. 314 during
the period from Month of March, 2020 to November, 2020. Defendants
No. 2 and 3 are MHADA Agents who helped defendant No. 1 to commit
trespass in the suit premises. The plaintiff was original tenant in old
Room No. 19. MHADA Authorities acquired the building of the old
Room No. 19 and required the plaintiff to vacate the same. The
plaintiff was allotted transit accommodation at Room No. 2439,
Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, Mumbai. Later the plaintiff was shifted to Room
No. 3027, Building No. 106, Vikroli Transit Camp, Mumbai, vide letter
dated 20.04.2008. He has paid rent of said room to MHADA. By
another allotment letter dated 18.07.2019 the plaintiff came in the suit
premises i.e. Room No. 314, Vikroli Transit Camp, Mumbai. Due to
Covid19 pandemic, lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020. Therefore,
the plaintiff left for his native place. He came back to Mumbai on
20.11.2020 and found that defendant No. 1 was staying in the suit
premises. On enquiry he found that defendant No. 2 and 3 have
-- 2 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..3.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
inducted defendant No. 1 in the suit premises. Defendant No. 2 and 3
normally do so by preparing bogus documents and handing over
possession of various premises to persons like defendant No. 1. The
plaintiff has requested defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit premises, but
he did not budge. Hence, he has sought possession of the suit premises
from defendant No. 1.
5. According to advocate for the plaintiff, the above
allegations in the plaint clearly made out the case that, the plaintiff is
seeking specific performance of statutory obligations and so the suit is
properly valued for Rs.1,000/.
6. In Rajaram Tiwari’s case, the suit was filed against MCGM
on whose land the plaintiffs’ premises were situated. The plaint further
asserted that, the premises were acquired by the plaintiff No. 1 and
defendant No. 4. The name of defendant No. 4 however, was
mentioned in the rent receipts. The plaintiffs were also contributing
towards the rent. It was further stated that, the rehabilitation scheme
was introduced wherein the premises were situated and under said
scheme the tenant/occupier were to be accommodated in the newly
constructed building developed by defendant No.2. Defendants No. 4
to 6 have colluded together and got allotment of Room No. 302 without
the knowledge of the plaintiffs and therefore the suit was filed to
declare that plaintiffs are jointly entitled to stay in Room No. 302
granted in lieu of their old premises.
7. Considering the statement in the plaint the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court has observed that,
-- 3 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..4.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
“12. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed
a suit in which they have stated that they have
right in respect of Room No. 302 which has been
allotted to defendant No. 4 by virtue of
Rehabilitation Scheme which is framed under the
provisions of the Rehabilitation Act. The
Rehabilitation Scheme prescribes that a tenant or
occupant of the premises would have a right of
being accommodated in a new building which
would be constructed by the Builder who is
authorized to develop a slum according to the
guidelines which are laid down for the
implementation of the reconstruction /
redevelopment schemes under the Regulation No.
33(7) of the Development Control Regulations
for Greater Bombay, 1991. These guidelines,
therefore, have a statutory force and certain
rights are created in favour of the
occupants/tenants who are residing in the said
slum or area which is to be redeveloped. The said
Scheme has laid down various eligibility criteria
as also the manner in which a Cooperative
Society is to be formed, procedure for raising of
loan, the prerequisites of construction, proposal
etc. The Slum Rehabilitation Act also has been
amended and, as a result, rights of certain
occupants are also protected. In the present case,
if the plaint is read as a whole, it would appear
that the plaintiffs are, in fact, seeking a right
which stems from the said Scheme. It is the
plaintiffs case that they were in occupation of the
old structure since 1957 and in para 12 of the
plaint, they state that the defendants had
threatened to dispossess them from the premises
on 9/9/2003. In para 6 of the plaint, it is averred
by the plaintiffs that they were jointly entitled to
permanent alternative accommodation which was
granted in lieu of the old premises. In para 5A of
the plaint, they have alleged that the defendant
No. 4, in collusion with the other defendants,
succeeded in getting the allotment of Room No.
302 in his favour and to the exclusion of the
-- 4 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..5.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that it is not
specifically averred in the plaint that the Plaintiffs
are seeking to enforce the obligations which are
created by the Rehabilitation Scheme. However,
the fact remains that in para 4 of the plaint, they
have made reference to the Rehabilitation
Scheme. They have mentioned in para 5 that they
were in possession of the old premises for more
than 45 years and that they were jointly entitled
to the permanent alternative accommodation. In
my view, therefore, the prayer which is aside in
the plaint cannot be read in isolation and has to
be read in the context of the case which is tried
to be made out in the plaint. In my view,
therefore, the subject matter of the suit is not
susceptible to the monetary valuation as it
pertains to the rights which the plaintiffs are
seeking and which flow out of the statutory
obligations which are created in favour of the
occupants of a slum under the Slum
Rehabilitation Act as also the Scheme which is
framed under Rule 33(7) of the Development
Control Rules.
13. In the present case, obviously, the relief
which is substantively asked for is that the
plaintiff is jointly entitled for being allotted a
permanent alternative accommodation.
15. In the present case, the specific averments
are not made in the plaint by the plaintiff
regarding the statutory obligations and the
enforcement of the said statutory obligations. If
the averments in the plaint are considered in
their entirety, the principal relief which the
plaintiffs are seeking is the performance of the
obligation which is created in their favour by
virtue of the Scheme which is framed under the
Development Control Regulations as also under
the Slum Regulation Act.”
8. Therefore, it was held that, the suit was essentially for
-- 5 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..6.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
specific performance of statutory obligations on MCGM which had
implemented rehabilitation scheme and had taken over the old premises
of the plaintiff.
9. In this case, bare perusal of the plaint itself reveals that, the
plaintiff was allotted the suit premises and possession of the suit
premises was also delivered to him. The plaint further asserts that the
plaintiff resided in the suit premises for some period and left for his
native place due to the lockdown imposed in the wake of Covid19
pandemic. According to the plaint thereafter defendant No. 1
committed trespass with the help of defendant No. 2 and 3. On these
allegations the possession of the suit premises is sought. These
circumstances do not reveal that any way MHADA is responsible for
inducting defendant No. 1. No relief is sought against MHADA.
10. What appears is that, after his induction in the suit
premises the plaintiff has lost possession due to the alleged wrongful
acts of the defendants No. 1 to 3, for which no authority implementing
rehabilitation scheme is responsible. In such circumstances, present suit
cannot be considered as a suit seeking specific performance of statutory
obligations of defendants No. 1 to 3 as they do not have any.
Consequently, the authority, cited supra, is not attracted in the present
case. Since the plaintiff is seeking possession of the suit premises which
is immovable property susceptible to monetary valuation, the plaintiff
will have to value the suit to the tune of market value of the suit
premises. In view of this, the objection raised by the office as to
valuation of the suit needs to be accepted. Hence, following order :
-- 6 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..7.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
ORDER
1. The plaintiff is directed to correct the valuation
of the suit to the tune of market value of the suit
premises and to pay the Court Fee thereon.
2. Eight weeks time is granted for compliance.
(AJIT N. MARE)
Judge,
Date : 08.03.2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated On : 08.03.2021
Transcribed on : 09.03.2021
HHJ Signed on : 12.03.2021
-- 7 of 8 --
Order on Exh.1 ..8.. In S.C. Suit No.692/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
12.03.2021 5.49 p.m. Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer (GradeI)
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SHRI. AJIT. N. MARE
(Court Room No. 3)
Date of pronouncement of
Order
08.03.2021
Order signed by P. O. on 12.03.2021
Order uploaded on 12.03.2021
-- 8 of 8 --