Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 1 of 10
Suit Lodged on : 12.02.2019
Suit Admitted on : 24.06.2019
Suit Decided on : 03.01.2026
Duration : 06 Years, 10 Months 22 Days
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
Commercial Suit No. 765 / 2021
Exhibit No. 22
1a. Felcy Leo Coutinho
Age 81 years, Occupation : Housewife,
Add : 3, Sheriar, Tawoosian Building,
St. Pauls Street, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014.
2. Mr. Shelton Coutinho
Age : 42 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Service,
R/at A-2, Pearl Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.,
205, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar (East), Mumbai 400 014. … Plaintiffs
V/s.
Rockford Structures Private Limited
a Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered address at 209, Konark
Shram Building, 2nd Floor, Plot No.
156, Raja Bahadur Mill Compound,
Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034,
Maharashtra. … Defendant
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. Mahesh Menon
Adv. Ankansha Anand i/b. Mahesh Menon & Co.
Defendant : Adv. Ms. Yasmin Tavaria
Adv. Ashok Bhatia
-- 1 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 2 of 10
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.31.
DATE : 03.01.2026
***************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 3rd day of January, 2026)
Suit for declaration, specific performance, recovery of an amount and
perpetual injunction.
1. Plaintiffs sued defendant for a relief of declaration that
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement Dt. 20.12.2013
(henceforth referred as PAAA) is legal and valid. Plaintiffs also claimed
for specific performance of contract based on Clause Nos. 1 and 3 of
PAAA. Plaintiffs seek to recover an amount of Rs.8,32,000/- with an
additional prayer to direct defendant to reserve 390 sq.ft. area in the
proposed construction.
Facts giving rise to the dispute are summarized as under :
2. Plaintiffs are individuals and they were tenant of Room No. 3
admeasuring 171 square feet located on 2nd floor of building namely
Sheriar Tawoosian situated in City Survey No. 50 on Saint Pauls Street,
Dadar, Mumbai 400014 (hereinafter referred as suit property).
Defendant is a developer. Defendant proposed to develop the property
in which plaintiffs occupy a small premises as referred above. So, PAAA
was executed between the parties on 20.12.2013. It was agreed
between plaintiffs and defendant that in lieu of handing over possession
of plaintiffs’ rented premises, defendant would pay them transit
compensation Rs.15,000/- per month.
-- 2 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 3 of 10
3. For first 24 months, amount payable by defendant was Rs.
3,60,000/- and there was additional 10% increase. It was agreed that
when new building is constructed, defendant would allot plaintiffs flat
no. 703 admeasuring 390 square feet. Relying on PAAA, plaintiffs
vacated suit property in September 2014. However, defendant made a
default in making payment of transit rent. On 03.10.2014, defendant
issued a cheque of Rs.1,90,000/- having no. 056279 in favour of
plaintiffs. But that cheque was dishonoured for a reason “Funds
Insufficient”.
4. Plaintiffs issued notice on 19.10.2015 and 08.08.2016 calling
upon defendant to pay Rs.3,60,000/-, but defendant did not pay.
Plaintiffs filed a Company Petition No. 884/2016 under Section 433 (e),
434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of defendant’s
company. Said Petition was filed in Hon’ble Bombay High Court. During
pendency of that proceeding, Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016
came into force. So, plaintiff’s Petition was transferred to National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai and registered as Petition No.
948/2017.
5. However, that Petition was dismissed on 15.10.2018 on
ground that amount claimed under PAAA does not fall under definition
of operation debt under the Bankruptcy Code. However, plaintiffs were
permitted to explore other remedies. Hence, this suit is filed wherein
plaintiffs claimed all the reliefs, which are mentioned in introductory
paragraph of this Judgment.
6. In response to Writ of Summons, defendant appeared and
-- 3 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 4 of 10
filed Written Statement at Exh.5. Crux of Written Statement is that
defendant is ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per
PAAA. However, it is contended that, suit is not maintainable.
Defendant admitted execution of PAAA and his promise to pay transit
rent. Defendant submits that vacating the suit premises was sine qua
non for defendant to comply his part of contract. However, plaintiffs not
vacated the suit premises till this date. Cheque 056279 which was given
in good faith was not expected to be presented to bank for encashment.
7. As plaintiffs not vacated the suit property, so it become
difficult for defendant to develop the same. Except plaintiffs, remaining
all tenants had handed over possession of suit property to defendant.
Thus, denying entire claim, defendant prayed for dismissal of suit.
8. During pendency of suit, plaintiff no. 1 Mr. Leo Coutinho
passed away. Hence, plaintiff no. 1a Felcy Leo Coutinho appeared on
record as legal heir along with plaintiff no. 2.
9. As per roznama Dt. 01.03.2024, the then Presiding Officer
mentioned that issues are framed on 15.11.2022. Both parties tendered
draft issues long back on 15.01.2020. Unsigned issues are there on
record. Even plaintiffs tendered evidence affidavit and acting on that,
further examination in chief was recorded, documents were marked.
Plaintiffs closed its evidence vide Exh.20. Thus, in order to keep the
record straight, today I proceed to sign those issues and they are
marked vide Exh. 21.
10. In view of issues vide Exh.21, I have recorded my findings for
the reasons discussed as follows:
-- 4 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 5 of 10
Sr.
No.
Issues Findings
1 Whether plaintiffs proves that as per the
terms and conditions of Permanent Alternate
Accommodation (PAA) agreement and in
consideration of the plaintiff’s handing over
vacant possession in respect of existing
premises defendant had agreed to give
plaintiff in lieu of existing premises a new
premises i.e. flat no. 703 admeasuring
carpet area of 390 sq. feet on 7th floor in
proposed building known as Silver Crest?
In the Affirmative.
2 Whether plaintiffs proves that as per Clause
No. 3 of PAA agreement defendant agreed to
pay to plaintiff transit compensation
aggregating to Rs.3,60,000/- for first 24
months and then for subsequent period with
10% additional increase after 2 years?
In the Affirmative.
3 Whether plaintiffs proves that an amount of
Rs.8,32,000/- is due from defendant?
In the Affirmative.
4. Whether plaintiffs proves that defendant has
failed and neglected to pay transit
compensation as per PAA agreement from
01.10.2014 along with transportation
charges?
In the Affirmative.
5. Whether plaintiffs proves that PAA
agreement Dt. 20.12.2013 is valid and
subsisting and binding upon plaintiff and
defendant?
In the Affirmative.
6. Whether suit is maintainable? In the Affirmative.
7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim relief
of declaration against defendant?
In the Affirmative.
8. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim relief
of specific performance of PAA agreement?
In the Affirmative.
9. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim
decree against defendant directing
defendant to hand over to plaintiff vacant
and physical possession of suit premise flat
no. 703?
In the Affirmative.
-- 5 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 6 of 10
10. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.8,32,000/- from defendant? If
yes, at what rate of interest?
In the Affirmative.
11. What order and decree? Suit is decreed
with cost.
R E A S O N S
As to issue nos. 1 to 6
11. In order to prove his case, plaintiff no. 2 Mr. Shelton Coutinho
examined himself at Exh.14 wherein he categorically narrated about
capacity of plaintiff as a tenant of room no. 3 admeasuring 171 square
feet. He deposed in respect of PAAA which is at Exh.17. It is contention
of plaintiff that, in lieu of handing over possession of suit property,
defendant agreed to pay transit compensation and agreed to allot
plaintiff flat no. 703 of 390 square feet in a building, which was
proposed to be constructed as redevelopment.
12. I have gone through PAAA Dt. 20.12.2013 and its Clauses 1
and 3. Its a matter of record that in lieu of suit premises, defendant
agreed not only to pay transit rent but also to allot flat no. 703 to
plaintiff in the same premises. As deposed by plaintiff, cheque issued by
defendant as a payment of transit rent got dishonoured. Original cheque
is placed on record vide Exh.18.
13. Defendant in Written Statement admitted execution of PAAA
and also admitted that he had given a cheque to plaintiff. It is stand of
defendant that cheque was given in good faith and plaintiff was not
supposed to tender it for encashment as plaintiff not vacated suit
premises. It is contention of defendant that though all tenants handed
over possession of their respective property to defendant, but plaintiff is
-- 6 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 7 of 10
the only tenant, who refused to hand it over.
14. On backdrop of above, plaintiff deposed that, possession of
suit property was handed over in September 2014. In Written
Statement defendant had spoken about inconsistent pleas raised by
plaintiff. Here, it is pertinent to note that, on 01.04.2019 the then
Presiding Officer turned down Notice of Motion No. 708/2019 filed by
plaintiff for interim reliefs. One of the reason was that there is
inconsistency in stand taken by plaintiff about date of handing over
possession to defendant.
15. However, order on Notice of Motion was passed at interim
stage when evidence was not recorded. At that stage, Court was not
supposed to appreciate evidence to the hilt. Plaintiff relied on oral and
documentary evidence but defendant neither conducted cross
examination of plaintiff nor stepped into witness box to prove his own
case. So unchallenged oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff can
very well be believed on every count including handing over possession
of suit property to defendant.
16. Thus, there is no reason to discard credible oral and
documentary evidence of plaintiff. Defendant admitted quantum of
transit rent. There is no evidence tendered by defendant to show full or
part payment of transit rent to plaintiff. Had defendant was ready and
willing to perform its part of contract, it would have paid regular transit
rent / compensation to plaintiff. However, no such evidence is tendered
by defendant. Hence, it is proved that defendant failed to perform its
part of contract.
-- 7 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 8 of 10
17. In such circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to declaration that
PAAA Exh.17 is valid and subsisting document between the parties.
Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.8,32,000/- as outstanding amount of transit
rent. At the same time, plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific
performance of contract along with direction to defendant to pay Rs.
16,500/- from 01.02.2019 to plaintiff till plaintiffs are put in possession
of flat no. 703.
18. Only because Petition filed by plaintiff in NCLT was turned
down, that cannot be a reason to prevent plaintiff from availing civil
remedy. Hence, suit is tenable as it stands. Hence, I answer issue nos. 1
to 6 in affirmative.
As to issue nos. 7 to 10
19. In view of discussion of issue nos. 1 to 6, needless to say
finding of issue nos. 7 to 10 is in affirmative. Resultantly, suit deserves
to be decreed. As answer to issue no. 11, following order is passed :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 765/2021 is decreed with cost.
2. It is declared that PAA Agreement Dt. 20.12.2013 executed
between plaintiff and defendant is valid, subsisting and
enforceable document between plaintiff and defendant.
3. Defendant is directed to hand over vacant possession of flat
no. 703 admeasuring 390 square feet to plaintiff as per prayer
clause (b) of plaint.
4. Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.8,32,000/- from defendant.
Defendant shall pay said amount to plaintiff within three
months from the date of this Judgment.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to get 9% interest per annum on above
referred amount from the date of suit till its actual realization.
-- 8 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 9 of 10
6. Plaintiff is entitled to get transit rent / compensation of Rs.
16,500/- with effect from 01.02.2019 till plaintiffs are put in
possession of flat no. 703 admeasuring 390 square feet.
7. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
8. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
9. After compliance and period of Appeal, Sheristedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 03.01.2026
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 9 of 10 --
CS No. 765 / 2021
Leo Vs. Rockford
Judgment (Exh.22) 10 of 10
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
- - Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
03.01.2026
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 03.01.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on -
Note : As CIS is not functional with effect from 26.12.2025, Judgment is
uploaded the moment CIS resumed functionality.
-- 10 of 10 --