Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 1862/2018 SUIT NO.4956/2008 1
CNR NO. MHCC01006047/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1862 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.4956 OF 2008
Salma Aslam Memon .. Plaintiff
Versus
Abdul Sattar Khalique Qureshi and others ...Defendants
Shri. V.P.Vaze advocate for the Plaintiff.
Shri.Anand Pandey advocate for Defendants.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Judge
CR No. : 32
Dated : 30th October 2018
ORDER
1. Defendant No.1 taken out this motion
1) Plaintiff be directed to deposit the sum of Rs.64,05,000/ being
the compensation till 31/12/2017.
2) Plaintiff be directed to deposit Rs.45,600/ per month till plaintiff
hand over vacant possession of suit premises to him.
2. Leave and licence agreement was entered into between plaintiff
and defendant No.1 on 20/05/2005 for the period from 18/05/2005 to
17/04/2006. The period of leave and licence agreement is expired then
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 1862/2018 SUIT NO.4956/2008 2
also plaintiff refuses to vacate and hand over the suit premises to the
defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also availed the available remedies to
him against the plaintiff. It appears from the averment in the motion
that both the parties has challenged the orders before the appellate
forum. As per the order dated 07/09/2015 in Appeal From Order
No.711/2015 it is directed that defendant should not disturb the
possession of plaintiff till the pending of the suit as plaintiff had
deposited Rs. 38Lakhs, whereby the property becomes protected. It
is the further contention of the defendant No.1 in the motion that as
per clause 17 of the leave and licence agreement plaintiff was to pay an
amount of Rs.1500/ per day and above Rs.600/ per month as a
compensation charges if they did not vacate the suit premises after the
expiry of the period of leave and licence agreement, hence, prays that
motion be made absolute.
3. Plaintiff filed the reply and submitted that motion be decided on
the basis of denial.
4. Heard Ld.advocate Shri. V.P.Vaze advocate for the Plaintiff.
and Shri.Anand Pandey advocate for Defendants.
REASONS
5. Plaintiff entered into leave and licence agreement with defendant
No.1 for the period 18/05/2005 to 17/04/2006 .After expiry of the
leave and licence agreement plaintiff refused to vacate the suit
premises, hence, defendant taken out application u/s.24 of Maharashtra
Rent Control Act. The order dated 30/06/2008 passed on this
application was challenged by plaintiff before Addl. Commissioner
Konkan Division, Bombay. The order dated 26/02/2009 was challenged
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 1862/2018 SUIT NO.4956/2008 3
by plaintiff in Civil Revision Application No.479/2009 before the High
Court but that was disposed of.
6. Plaintiff taken out notice of motion No.4424/2008 for order of
injunction that defendant should not dispossess the plaintiff from suit
premises that was dismissed on 30/03/2015, this order was challenged
by plaintiff in Appeal From Order No.711/2015. The Hon’ble High
Court by order dated 07/09/2015 directed the plaintiff to deposit
Rs.38 lakhs in the court and defendants were directed not to disturb the
possession of the plaintiff till pending of the suit.
7. The ld.advocate Shri.Pandey for the defendants submitted that
plaintiff has taken out this motion claiming the amount of
Rs.64,05,000/ (Rs.1500/ per day from 18/04/2006 till 31/12/2017)
as per clause 17 of the Leave and Licence Agreement, but the fact is that
leave and licence agreement is terminated in 2006. After termination of
the leave and licence agreement plaintiff refused to vacate the suit
premises to the defendant therefore, defendant filed the application
against the plaintiff under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
8. As on today’s date Leave and Licence Agreement is not in force
and plaintiff has deposited Rs.38 lakhs as per the order dated
07/09/2015 by the Hon’ble High Court. The security deposit of
Rs. 8 Lakhs of the plaintiff with respect to the suit premises is also lying
with the defendant since 2005.
9. Now the matter is for framing of issues, possession of plaintiff
over the suit premises is protected till the decision of this suit ,
therefore, the reliefs sought in the motion at this stage, cannot be
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 1862/2018 SUIT NO.4956/2008 4
considered, hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.1862/2018 is dismissed.
Date : 30/10/018 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Greater Mumbai
Direct typed on computer: 30/10/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 30/10/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
02/11/2018 at ( 12.40p.m.) Mrs. J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room No.) HHJ Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
(Court Room no.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 30/102/018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.on 30/102/018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 02/11/2018
.
-- 4 of 4 --