Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ..1.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
MHCC010005392020
Presented on : 14-01-2020
Registered on : 14-01-2020
Decided on : 04-02-2026
Duration : 06 Y, 0 M, 21 Days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 218 OF 2020
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 3236 OF 2019
M/s. Janata Shikshan Saunsthan … Plaintiff
V/s.
Amrutlal Raichand Shah … Defendant
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. H. C. SHENDE
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C. R. NO.65)
DATE : 4th February, 2026.
Appearance :-
Adv. Kashmira Dingankar for the plaintiff.
O R D E R
1. The present notice of motion filed by the plaintiff with
prayer that till final hearing and disposal of the suit the defendants,
their agents, servants or any person claiming to the defendant be
restrained from carrying any addition, alteration, structural changes in
the suit premises so also from handing over physical possession of the
suit premises i.e. Janta Stationary and General Stores, situated at
-- 1 of 6 --
..2.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
Adarsha Nagar Worli Koliwada, Mumbai-25 in any manner.
2. The said notice of motion is supported by the affidavit.
3. As per the plaintiff the defendant is trespasser running
business in the suit premises. In fact the plaintiff entered into
agreement with defendant which was leave and license agreement Dtd.
30.10.1977 it was expired on 30.09.1978. One RAD Suit No.2027/1991
filed by the defendant with prayer to declare him as a tenant of the suit
premises. The suit finally heard and vide order Dtd.17.11.2018 passed
by the Small Causes Court the said suit came to be disposed of with
finding of the court that the defendant is not tenant of the suit
premises. In July 2019 when the raid was conducted by the authorities
the defendant found in possession of cigarettes, Guthaka which are
banned articles. The defendant is corrupting mind of the children
studying in the school making them to go on wrong track by selling
cigarette and guthaka. The present suit filed by the plaintiff with prayer
to grant order of eviction of the defendant and thereafter to demolish
the suit premises and for injunction. The plaintiff requested to allow
the notice of motion.
4. Per contra the defendant filed affidavit in reply to the
notice of motion wherein it is contended that the plaintiffs suit is
misconceive, malafide, not maintainable in the eye of law. This court do
not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit is bad for non-joinder of
party as the plaintiff claiming to be the trust. The plaintiff not revealed
that the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Court. The plaint does not
disclose cause of action. All the averments and claim made by the
plaintiff denied by the defendant.
-- 2 of 6 --
..3.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
Further according to the defendant, the defendant was
inducted with leave and licences agreement in respect of the suit
premises. However the defendants paid consideration for converting
leave and licence into tenancy, and thereafter the status of landlord and
tenant came into existence. The plaintiff admitting status of the
defendant as a tenant. He addresses many communication for payment
of rent. The plaintiff is demanding arrears of rent. The defendant
obtained certificate to run the business from authority as per the Shop
and Establishment Act so he is in a continuous use and occupation of
the said premises. There is no merit in the case of plaintiff. The present
notice of motion and suit needs to be dismissed.
5. Heard Ld. advocate for plaintiff at length. Even after the
ample opportunities given to the defendant, the defendant failed to
argue the matter, the court therefore deciding the notice of motion on
its merit and on the basis of available record.
6. From the pleadings made by the parties it is clear that the
present plaintiff is a owner of the said suit premises in which at present
the present defendant is running business. It is situated at Worli
Koliwada, Mumbai. It is also not disputed that prior to the present suit
one RAD Suit No.2027/1991 was filed by the proposed defendant and it
was disposed of with finding against proposed defendant that the
defendant is not tenant in the suit premises. However, the defendant
through reply submitted that the appeal is pending.
7. Now the question before this court is only that whether the
prima facie case made by out by plaintiff to have order of injunction
against the defendant as prayed. The possession of defendant over suit
-- 3 of 6 --
..4.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
property not disputed by the plaintiff. What the plaintiff was asking is
that, the defendant or any person acting on behalf of defendant be
restrained from carrying any addition, alteration, structural changes in
the suit premises so also restrained from handing over physical
possession of the suit premises to any third person.
8. On the backdrop of the pleadings made by the parties
admitted fact and the specific stand taken by the defendant even after
disposal of the RAD Suit No.2027/1991 mentioned above with the clear
finding that defendant is not tenant we have to consider the facts.
9. The present defendant re-agitating the same stand that he
is tenant and plaintiff is a landlord. No doubt the appeal is pending as
mentioned by the defendant still this court, more particularly
considering the stand taken by the defendant is of opinion that the
apprehension put up by the plaintiff that the defendant may make
changes in the suit premises or may handover the possession to any
third person or may create multiple interest in the property is having
some force in it. This possibilities cannot be ruled out.
10. This court therefore is of view that prima facie case made
out by the plaintiff to have injunction against the defendant as prayed
in prayer clause 1 of the notice of motion. The possibility of creating
third party interest in the premises during pendancy of the defendant
cannot be ruled out and the structural changes or addition if any made
by the defendant during the pendency of suit then it is the plaintiff who
would suffer irreparable loss if the defendants are not restrained by
giving direction and injunction order as prayed by the plaintiff.
-- 4 of 6 --
..5.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
11. Hence, the court in the circumstances and for the reasons
mentioned above, proceed to pass the following order
O R D E R
1. The Notice of Motion No.218/2020 in Suit No.3236/2019 is
allowed.
2. The defendant, their agent or any person acting for and on
behalf of the defendant are hereby restrained from carrying
in addition, alteration, structural changes in the suit
premises and from handling over physical possession of the
suit premises to third person in any manner till final
disposal of the suit.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Proceeding of Notice of Motion No.218/2020 in Suit
No.3236/2019 is closed.
Date : 04.02.2026 (H. C. Shende )
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 04.02.2026
Transcribed on : 06.02.2026
Checked on : 07.02.2026
Corrected & Signed on : 16.02.2026
-- 5 of 6 --
..6.. N/M. No.218/20 (SC No.3236/2019)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
16.02.2026 05.56 p.m. Prajakta K. More-Grade-I
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Smt. H. C. Shende (C.R. No.65)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
04.02.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
16.02.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
16.02.2026
-- 6 of 6 --