Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 2890-19 in Suit No. 2153-19
CNR NO.MHCC0100797319
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2890 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2153 OF 2019
Trimurti Seva Mandal & Ors. …....Plaintiffs
V/s.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ..... Defendants
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 28th August, 2019
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Redekar for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Patil for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks temporary injunction
restraining the defendant corporation from implementing, executing
and /or enforcing the impugned order dated 01.01.2019.
2. Heard Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, Learned Advocate for
the defendant corporation.
3. The plaintiff claims to be the registered trusts under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in
possession of area admeasuring 430 sq.ft. in Old Cement Godown, Near
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 2890-19 in Suit No. 2153-19
Tardeo Bellasis Bridge, Sane Guruji Marg, Tardeo, Mumbai34. The
said area was allotted by the defendant corporation by virtue of
agreement dated 31.05.1996 of tenancy. It is the case of the plaintiff
that by virtue of renewal of the agreement, the plaintiff continued to be
the licensee of the area handed over to him. It is the case of the
plaintiff that the plaintiff had paid the rent till December 2018. The
defendant corporation abruptly had issued letter dated 25.07.2019,
asking the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the suit premises. It
is the case of the plaintiff that due procedure expected by law is not
followed by the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiffs are in still
possession of premises. The plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without
following due process of law.
The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the present suit for declaration
that the letter dated 19.07.2019 is illegal, null and void.
The plaintiff also had filed the present notice of motion seeking
temporary injunction restraining the defendant corporation from
implementing, executing and /or enforcing the impugned order dated
01.01.2019.
4. The defendant corporation on the other hand contended that the
plaintiffs were permitted to be the licensee of the suit premises for
about 10 years. Now, the corporation does not intend to extend the
license of the plaintiff. It is contended that the trust was in possession
of the premises on the basis of leave and license for temporary period.
The conditions of leave and license are binding on the plaintiff and
defendant has right to revoke the license agreement.
It is contended that the notice of motion being devoid of merits,
need not be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 2890-19 in Suit No. 2153-19
5. The relief claimed in the present notice of motion is the
defendant corporation be restrained by order of temporary injunction
from implementing, executing and /or enforcing the impugned order
dated 01.01.2019 and the letter dated 19.07.2019.
The letter dated 01.01.2019 points out that it was resolved that
the license of the plaintiff trusts is terminated from the possession of
premises should be obtained by the plaintiff.
6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was the licensee of the suit
premises. At present, the license of the plaintiff is terminated by the
defendant corporation. The position of the plaintiff at present is not
that of a licensee. The plaintiff was issued a letter dated 19.07.2019. It
points out that the suit premises was provided to the plaintiff on
temporary basis. The letter only calls upon the plaintiff to hand over
the vacant possession. The letter dated 01.01.2019 and the letter dated
19.07.2019 does not in any manner point out that the intention of the
corporation is to take the possession of the premises without following
due process of law.
The letter dated 01.01.2019 only declares the intention to
terminate the license of plaintiff and disclose his intention to reclaim
the possession. The letter dated 19.07.2019 only calls upon the plaintiff
to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within seven days.
It does not point out that the plaintiff would be forcibly dispossess from
the premises. The two letters which are sought to challenged in the suit
do not in any manner reflect the intention of the corporation to
dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit premises without following due
process of law. The apprehension of the plaintiff does not appear to be
valid. There is no threat to dispossess the plaintiff trust from the suit
premises without due process of law.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 2890-19 in Suit No. 2153-19
The plaintiff has failed to make out the primafacie case in his
favour. The balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff would not be put to irreparable loss, if the
temporary injunction is refused.
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No. 2890/2019 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 28.08.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 28.8.2019
Transcribed on : 28.08.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 30.08.2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 31.08.2019 at 3.15 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. Sanjay N. Yadav
C.R. no. 05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
28.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
30.08.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
31.08.2019
-- 4 of 4 --