Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: Draft NM in Suit 2214 of 2019 1 Adinterim order
MHCC040070032019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT DINDOSHI
(BORIVALI DIVISION), GOREGAON, MUMBAI
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 2214 OF 2019
(CNR NO : MHCC040070032019)
Mr. Lala Sardar Shaikh )..Plaintiff
V/s
The Mumbai Metropolitan
Region Development Authority )..Defendants
Ld. Adv. M. P. Mishra for Plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Vinod Shah for MMRDA/Defendant.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. M. S. SHARMA
(C. R. No.6)
DATE : 18th September, 2019
AD INTERIM ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff to temporarily
restrain the Defendants from dispossessing the Plaintiff and his family
members from the suit premises without following due process of law
-- 1 of 5 --
Draft NM in Suit 2214 of 2019 2 Adinterim order
and to appoint the Commissioner to visit the suit premises and submit
his report.
2. Heard learned advocate for Plaintiff as well as learned advocate
for Defendant. Perused the record.
3. The dispute is regarding one room premises bearing No. 705
situated in Asmi Complex, Ashirwad Industrial Estate, Ram Mandir
Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104. As per the claim of
Plaintiff, in view of Agreement dated 30.08.2016 executed between him
and one Vinod Babban Dhotare, he came in to occupation and
possession of the suit premises as a licensee. He paid Rs. 4,00,000/
towards security deposit. The period for license was from 01.09.2016
to 31.07.2017. It is claimed by Plaintiff that, still he is in possession
and occupation of the suit premises and the Defendant wants to evict
him and his family members. In support of his claim he relied on
several documents such as Leave and License Agreement, Electricity
Bills. He also relied on receipt of maintenance bills paid to the society.
4. Learned advocate for Defendant resisted the application by
submitting that, the leave and license agreement is already expired.
This Plaintiff has also filed another Suit bearing No. 1538 of 2019
which is pending before court room no. 4 same is in respect of the same
suit premises, therefore, no relief can be granted.
5. Upon perusing the documents relied by the Plaintiff, it is noted
that, the leave and license period was from 30.08.2016 to 31.07.2017
which is already expired. None of the electricity bills reflects the name
-- 2 of 5 --
Draft NM in Suit 2214 of 2019 3 Adinterim order
of the Plaintiff nor in any of the receipt of the maintenance name of the
Plaintiff is mentioned. Moreover, in receipt dated 11.11.18 name of
some other person 'Krushna Vaitee' is mentioned who is shown to house
paid the maintenance of the suit premises. Apart from that, there is no
other document on record to show that, the Plaintiff is in possession of
the suit premises.
6. In addition to same, the Plaintiff has already filed a Suit bearing
Registration No. 201538 of 2019. Said suit was registered on
01.07.2019, and it is in respect of the same property and Defendant
therein is Mr. Krushna who is claimed to be owner of the suit premises.
Certainly, since Competent Civil Court is already seized of the matter
and Plaintiff had recourse available to join this Defendant as party
Defendant in the said suit and claim the relief.
7. Learned advocate for Plaintiff submitted that, Plaintiff can file as
many as suit he wish to file and against each of Defendant, he can file
separate suit. Such is not legal position as it leads to multiplicity of the
litigation. Therefore, serious question arise about the tenability of the
suit itself. Considering the same, Plaintiff do not deserves any relief as
prayed.
8. Learned advocate for Plaintiff also placed reliance on the
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramaniaswamy
Temple V/s. V. Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRs. in Civil Appeal Nos.
71357136 of 2000 dated 14 th May, 2008 and Rame Gowda (D) by
Lrs. V/s. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. & Anr., in Appeal (Civil)
No. 7662 of 1997 dated 15th December, 2003. In both the cases,
Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that, a person in settled
-- 3 of 5 --
Draft NM in Suit 2214 of 2019 4 Adinterim order
possession cannot be dispossessed without following due procedure of
law. In the case in hand defendant is a statutory authority and
following due process of law. Therefore, with due respect both
authorities are of no help to the Plaintiff, therefore, no case is made out
for grant any relief to the Plaintiff. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
Adinterim relief is refused.
Sd/
Date : 18.09.2019 (M. S. SHARMA)
J U D G E
SESSIONS COURT,
DINDOSHI, MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 18.09.2019
Transcribed on : 19.09.2019
Checked & corrected on : 23.09.2019
Signed on : 23.09.2019
Sent to Dept on :
-- 4 of 5 --
Draft NM in Suit 2214 of 2019 5 Adinterim order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
Date : 24/09/2019 Ms. Tejal C. Rane
Time : 11.24 A.M. (H. G. Stenographer)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court room no.) HHJ M. S. Sharma (C.R.No.6)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 18/09/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 23/09/2019
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 24/09/2019
-- 5 of 5 --