Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: .. 1 ..
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT – 14
IN
L.E. Suit No. 19 of 2023
(CNR No. MHSCA3-000200-2023)
Mr. Pradeep Radharaman Ladiwal ... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Devendra Radharaman Ladiwal ... Defendant
Mr. S. A. Abhyankar, Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. A. M. Saraogi, Ld. Advocate for Defendant.
Coram :- P. K. Kharate, Judge
C. R. No. 36 [B.B.]
Date :- 27/09/2023
ORDER :
The plaintiff has filed present application stating that, the
present suit is for recovery of possession of the suit flat. The
plaintiff has already cancelled the gratuitous license in favour of
defendant. Hence, plaintiff prayed that till the disposal of the suit
defendant be directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month as a
compensation.
2. The say filed by the defendant vide Exh. 15 stating that,
defendant has not admitted the relationship between both parties.
The defendant has independent right in the suit premises. Hence,
there is no merit in the application.
3. Heard both sides at length. Perused the written argument
of the plaintiff vide Exh. 16.
-- 1 of 2 --
.. 2 .. EXH-14 L.E. Suit No. 19 of 2023
4. On perusal of record it appears that, the plaintiff is
claiming that defendant is the gratuitous licensee of suit premises.
It means plaintiff is claiming that there is no any rent charged
from the defendant. Moreover, there is no any agreement on
record filed by the plaintiff to show that there is any rent or
compensation charged from the defendant. Moreover, even though
defendant has mentioned in para no. 8 of written statement that
he is the owner by adverse possession it doesn’t mean that case of
the plaintiff is proved.
5. I perused entire documents of the plaintiff. There is no
any agreement in respect of payment of compensation @ Rs.
35,000/- per month. The plaintiff yet to prove the relationship
between both parties. Moreover, there is contrary pleading about
the gratuitous licensee in the suit and present application is filed
for payment of compensation. Hence, there is no merit in the
application to pay compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per month to the
plaintiff by the defendant. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The application below Exh. 14 is rejected.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Both parties to take note.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
(P. K. Kharate)
Date : 27/09/2023 Judge, C.R. No. 36
Order dictated and typed on : 27/09/2023
Order checked and signed on : 27/09/2023
/home/steno36/7. P.K. Kharate/September, 2023/Orders/27.09.2023/EXH-14 LE 19 of 2023. deposit of compensation.odt KCP
-- 2 of 2 --