Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 13.10.2023
Sr. No. 33
CORAM: H.H.J. SHRI. A.G. SANTANI (C.R. NO.11)
SU 681/18
NM 3835/19
Adv. Mr. Rohit for the plaintiff is present.
None present for defendant No.1.
Adv. Mr. G.O. Giri for defendant Nos. 2 and 3/MCGM is present.
The following Order is passed in NM No. 3835/2019.
-: O R D E R : -
01. The plaintiffs took out the present Notice of Motion -
the NM, for directing defendant No.1 to pay the assessment taxes
levied by defendant No.3 and for depositing Rs. 2.50 lakh in Court,
in order to avoid attachment of the suit property. Perused the NM,
the accompanying affidavit of plaintiff No.1, written submissions of
the plaintiffs and the record. Whereas, the defendants didn’t prefer
to contest this NM.
02. Considering the record, at the outset, it is pertinent to
note that the plaintiffs filed the NM contending that defendant No.
1 illegally constructed a tin shed, admeasuring 1458.07 sq. meters,
with mezzanine floor, without their permission, who are landlords
of the suit property, and that of defendant No. 3. It is, therefore, he
is liable to pay the taxes as per the notice from 01.02.2019. Further
defendant No.1 is in illegal occupation of the suit property and as
such, he is liable to pay the said taxes and to deposit the amount of
Rs. 2.50 lakh, towards the outstanding the property tax, in order to
avoid attachment of the property. At this stage, it is worth notable
that by filing his written statement, vide Exhibit 3, defendant No.1
denied the plaintiff’s status as the owners of the suit premises. He
presented himself as a tenant of one Tarachand Chajed, since 1985.
He contended that the said Chajed agreed to convert this tenancy
into ownership for consideration of Rs.6.51 lakh and accordingly,
he paid the same as per the writings dtd. 01.01.1999. Moreover, the
-- 1 of 2 --
said Conveyance Deed dtd. 16.06.2015 is illegal. He challenged the
notice of dtd. 05.01.2001, issued U/s. 55 of the MRTP Act, by filing
W.P. No.123/2001. On this backdrop, it is crystal clear that at this
stage of this matter, the plaintiffs’ contention regarding the alleged
illegal construction and occupation of defendant No.1 aren’t readily
inferred. Contrarily, in view of his defence, certainly, he raised some
triable issues and denied the plaintiffs’ propriety on the property. In
the circumstances, at this interim stage, when the parties are still to
substantiate their stands on trial, the reliefs sought in view of this
NM can’t be considered. Else, it would create the situation of chaos.
On this backdrop, I am of the opinion that presently, the NM needs
to be disposed of as filed. Hence, NM No. 3835/2019 is disposed of
as filed.
Adjourned for draft issues to 15.12.2023.
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --