Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Draft NM (Suit 2846/19)
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
INTERIM ORDER IN DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2846/2019
Shafi K.M. ..Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Shankar Rajaram Bairi (Bhairu)
2. Meena Shankar Bairi (Bhairu)
3. Manohar Rajaram Bhairu alias Babu
4. Suresh Rajaram Bhairu ..Defendants
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. L.K.Tripathi for plaintiff.
CORAM : HHJ Shri V.V Vidwans.
C. R. No.03.
DATE : 11.11.2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Perused draft Notice of Motion (N/M) supported by an
affidavit filed by plaintiff Shafi K.M.
2. Defendants/respondents were tried to be served by the
plaintiff as per evidence affidavit filed on record but it is submitted in
the affidavit that, on 7.11.2019 the defendants had refused to accept
the service of true copy of Notice of Motion, affidavit in support, true
copy of plaint along with annexures, deliberately and intentionally and
have failed to attend the court on 8.11.2019 when the matter was heard
by this court on the question of grant of adinterim relief to the plaintiff.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel Mr. L.K. Tripathi for the plaintiff.
He took me through the pleadings in the plaint and documents filed on
record as per list and submitted that, the plaintiff has approached this
Court seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Draft NM (Suit 2846/19)
has sought interim relief of temporary injunction as per prayer clauses
(b) and (c), during pendency of the suit.
4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that, the
plaintiff is running a hotel business in the name and style “M/s. Hotel
Accore Inn”, Gala No.1 and 2 admeazuring 1800 sq.ft., 1st Floor of the
building known as 'Rajaram Niwas', a plot of land bearing CTS No.23/9,
AndheriGhatkopar Link Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400 072 of Village
Mohili, Tehsil Kurla and Dist. Mumbai. The said hotel premises is
referred to as 'suit premises' in the plaint.
5. It is submitted that, the defendants are owners of the above
said premises where the plaintiff is carrying on his hotel business. In the
year 2015, the defendants had represented to the plaintiff that they are
joint owners of the suit property and were ready and willing to give the
suit premises to the plaintiff for running his hotel business for a period
of 10 years. The plaintiff was required to spend huge expenses on his
hotel business for running the same for the period of 10 yrs. in the suit
premises and therefore MOU came to be executed between the parties
on 15.4.2015. The plaintiff had paid Rs.5 Lakh to the defendant no.3
for and on behalf all the defendants as per copy of MOU filed with the
plaint vide Exh.B. As per understanding between the parties, the
plaintiff had spent huge expenses of Rs.20 Lakh for renovation of the
suit premises for running his hotel business. Thereafter, at the behest of
the defendants, the parties had decided to have a registered agreement
for the sake of convenience and to remove technical difficulties and
accordingly, a registered agreement came to be executed between the
plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 with the consent of defendants no.3
and 4 on 15.7.2017, copy of which is annexed with the plaint vide
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Draft NM (Suit 2846/19)
Exh.C. Said agreement was for the period of three years. As per copy of
Shops and Establishment Certificate, vide Exh.D, filed on record, the
fact of running the hotel business by the plaintiff in the suit premises as
stated above has been shown. Copies of electric bills vide Exh.E are also
filed on record showing possession of the plaintiff. Similarly, documents
of bank account of Current Account of the plaintiff vide Exh.F colly. and
documents of GST paid by the plaintiff mentions in the above address
vide Exh.G. Documents of telephone connection vide Exh.H are also
filed on record.
6. On the above factual background, it is grievance of the
plaintiff that the defendants have tried to dispossess the plaintiff from
the suit premises dishonestly and with malafide intention and such
attempt was made on 30.10.2019 when defendants no.3 and 4 along
with their associates had entered the suit premises and manhandled
employees of the plaintiff, threatened to dispossess and asked the
employees of the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises failing which they
will have to face dire consequences. In this regard, the plaintiff and his
employees have lodged a complaint with police vide copy FIR filed on
record vide Exh.I. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that, the
defendants no.3 and 4 have no right and authority to dispossess the
plaintiff from the suit premises. The defendants have refused to accept
the service of Notice of Motion deliberately and intentionally. If ad
interim relief is not granted to the plaintiff, he will suffer irreparable
loss and is likely to be dispossessed by the defendants by taking law in
their hands.
7. After considering the prima facie material on record and
after taking into consideration the submissions made before the court, I
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Draft NM (Suit 2846/19)
find that, prima facie, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises
and running his hotel business on the basis of MOU dated 15.4.2015
and Leave & License Agreement dated 15.7.2017. There are also
documents on record showing possession of the plaintiff in the suit
premises and considering copy of FIR dated 31.10.2019, I am satisfied
that it will be just and necessary to grant adinterim protection to the
plaintiff till the defendants/respondents appear before this court and
file their say. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Prayer clauses (b) and (c) of draft Notice of Motion
is hereby allowed.
2. Defendants/ respondents no.1 to 4 are hereby
directed to maintain statusquo as on today, the
legal status of the suit property and not to disturb
the possession of the plaintiff till next date.
3. The plaintiff is directed to comply with the
provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC.
4. Leave granted to register draft Notice of Motion.
5. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is directed to serve the
defendants with the copy of Notice of Motion and
suit summons by appearing before next date.
6. The plaintiff is also directed to remove office
objections, if any, and serve writ of summons to the
defendants within four weeks.
7. Issue notices to the defendants/ respondents no.1 to
4 to show cause as to why the adinterim order
passed should not be confirmed.
8. Notices are made returnable on 28.11.2019.
(V.V. Vidwans)
Date: 11.11.2019 Judge, City Civil Court,
Dictated on : 11.11.2019 Gr. Bombay (C.R. 03)
Typed on : 11.11.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 11.11.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Draft NM (Suit 2846/19)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ ORDER.
UPLOADED ON : 15.11.19
TIME: 4.56 pm (NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.
Name of the judge (with Court Room No.) Shri V.V. Vidwans, Judge, (C.R. 03)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ Order 11.11.19
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on 11.11.19
Judgment/ order uploaded on 15.11.19
-- 5 of 5 --