Order 9

Order Details: Order on T.I.
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
IN THE SMALL CAUSES COURT AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT – 10
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO. 220 OF 2025
(CNR No. :- MHSCA3-000541-2025)
Krovsheba Holdings Pvt. Ltd. … Plaintiff.
V/S
1. Mrs. Renuka Nagpal and Anr. … Defendants.
Mr. J. J. Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. M. A. Chandan, Ld. Advocate for the Defendants.
Coram : Mr. N. R. Gajbhiye, Judge
Court Room No. 33 (B.B.)
Date : 3rd August, 2026.
ORDER
The plaintiff has filed an application for grant of
temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating,
subletting, carrying any permanent alteration and addition of Flat
No. 6 admeasuring 1300 sq.ft. (including the area of veranda illegally
constructed and other illegal construction made by defendants) in the
suit property/ building Dreamland, C.T.S. No. 224C, 36 Mount Mary
Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘suit premises’).
2. Perused the application and say filed. Heard the Ld.
Advocate for both sides and documents relied by them. The following
points arises for my determination and I have recorded my finding
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 1 of 10 --
: 2 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
with reasons thereon:-
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1) Whether the plaintiff is having prima
facie case?
: Yes
2) Whether the balance of convenience is in
favour of the plaintiff?
: Yes
3) If the temporary injunction could not be
granted in favour of the plaintiff? Will
suffer irreparable loss?
: Yes
4) What order? : As per final order.
REASONS FOR FINDING
Point Nos. 1 to 3:-
The plaintiff’s case in nutshell as under:-
3. The plaintiff is the private limited company incorporated
under Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is the owner and landlord
of the suit premises. The plaintiff has let out the suit premises to
defendants. Since then defendants are in possession. On 27/03/2025
the letter addressed by the advocate for the plaintiff to defendant No.
1. Defendant No. 1 replied that notice on 06/05/2025 and admitted
the acquisition of the suit property by the plaintiff from the previous
owner and they have started paying the rent and continued to pay
the rent to the plaintiff. On 16/05/2025 the plaintiff through its
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 2 of 10 --
: 3 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
advocate pointed out the conduct of defendants that, they refused to
pay the rent and they wanted to investigate the derivative title of the
plaintiff and asked to give inspection of documents. Therefore,
defendants were not ready and willing to pay the rent, taxes and
permitted increase. On 23/05/2025 defendant sent their reply
through their advocate and refused to pay the rent that the office
bearers of the defendant society Island Heights Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. the claim of the plaintiff appeared to be fraudulent. The
building of the society is on the plot adjoining the suit property. The
society intends to redevelop the property and therefore, adopted his
illegal and unlawful method.
4. Defendants have carried out the permanent additions
and alterations in the suit premises and committed act of waste and
damage to the suit premises which are detrimental to the right of the
plaintiff. It also damaged to the original structure of the tenanted
premises and spoilt the elevation of the property. The plaintiff is
having apprehension that, defendants in collusion with the society
tried to alienate the suit property.
5. Per contra, the defendants have filed their say (Exh. 17).
According to them, they have been requested the Directors of the
plaintiff to furnish and give inspection of various documents to
investigate the derivative title of the plaintiff. But, plaintiff refused to
do so. In the counterblast, the present suit came to be filed. The
plaintiff had earlier filed the suit for eviction i.e. R.A.E. & R. Suit No.
636 of 2012 on the ground of addition and alteration of permanent
nature in the suit premises. The said suit came to be dismissed in
default. After 12 years, present suit came to be filed which is barred
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 3 of 10 --
: 4 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
by law of limitation.
6. The plaintiff has illegally constructed permanent
structure adjoining to the old suit structure namely ‘Studio 6262’ on
the South-West side of the suit premises. The plaintiff has not come
before the Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has concocted false
ground for eviction. There was no arrears of rent payable by the
defendants. Defendants have sent cheques towards rent in the past.
Defendants through their Advocate letter dated 23/06/2025 sent
cheque No. 195976 drawn on Canara Bank, Bandra Branch for Rs.
1,16,885/- as demanded by the plaintiff vide letter dated
16/05/2025.
7. Plaintiff filed rejoinder (Exh. 34). According to the
plaintiff, in Para Nos. 2(h) to 2(o) of the written statement,
defendants have referred the order passed in A.O. No. 634 of 1993 by
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The office bearers of the society got
inserted the said para through defendants. Defendants have
deliberately not mentioned that, the said order was challenged by
Directors of plaintiff by filing L.P.A. No. 119 of 1994 before the
Hon’ble High Court and also suppressed the order dated 27/04/1995
passed by the Hon’ble Divisional Bench, Bombay High Court in Civil
Application No. 1641 of 1994 taken out in the said L.P.A. The interim
relief granted ‘allowed to carry out water proofing and plastering of
the walls of the ground floor and upper floor admeasuring 4127 sq.ft.
as per the computation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
authorities.’ The Bombay Municipal Corporation has inspected the
premises. Thereafter, the plan was sanctioned and approved on
14/12/1994. The Divisional Bench allowed the plaintiff to complete
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 4 of 10 --
: 5 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
the work.
8. On account of further harassment and illegal work being
carried out by the defendants, the plaintiff given written complaint to
the Police Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bandra.
Defendants illegally constructing the walls, covering the passage,
constructing the toilets and rooms adjoining their bedroom and
illegally consuming the FSI. Defendants have punctured the walls of
bunglow structure in order to affix two water pipes on the outside
wall. The said structure is more than 100 years old. The said
construction unauthorizedly carried out without prior permission of
BMC. On 20/08/2025 plaintiff had given the complaint to BMC.
9. On the perusal of the letter dated 06/05/2025 addressed
by the defendant to the plaintiff, it is admitted that, defendants have
paid the rent and permitted increases from time to time without
suspecting any defect in the derivative title of the plaintiff. Thereafter,
the Island Heights Co-operative Housing Society had approached to
defendant and informed that, Mr. G. S. Khilnani had appointed M/s.
Forture Builders, who had constructed the building of stilt and seven
upper floors known as ‘Island Heights’. The society has filed an
complaint against the plaintiff to EOW that, the Director of the
plaintiff had got some documents fabricated to claim title of the said
property comprising of the structure known ‘Dreamland’ with the
portion of the leasehold land. The society also informed that, the
Director of the plaintiff company had forged the signatures on the
documents that were not duly registered.
10. Apart from it, in the letters dated 16/05/2025 and
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 5 of 10 --
: 6 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
05/06/2025 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant clearly
mention that, defendants since 1991-92 acknowledged the plaintiff as
a landlord. The letter dated 05/04/2024 addressed by defendants to
the plaintiff that, they are paying the rent for the period of January,
2022 to March, 2024 by way of cheque bearing No. 267897 of
Canara Bank, Bandra (West), Mumbai. In view of the letter of
correspondence and subsequently the cheque issued by the
defendants to the plaintiff it prima facie shows that, the defendants
are the tenant of the plaintiff.
11. The notice reply dated 23/05/2025 by defendants to the
advocate of the plaintiff, refused to pay the rent.
12. Admittedly, building of the society is on the plot adjacent
to the suit property. Society intend to redevelop the suit property.
Therefore, said society had adopted the unlawful method and
claiming society as their landlord. Therefore, the plaintiff had clearly
apprehension that, when the society claiming to be a landlord of the
defendants without any right and questioning the title of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has prima facie case to show that at any point of time
defendants will enter into the arrangement or understanding the
society redeveloped the suit property and alienate it.
13. The plaintiff more particularly relied on the report of
Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor which disclosed that, ‘Following are
the changes done in the flat observed during the survey – 1) An open
passage of 3.86 m x 2.64 m has been constructed of brick masonry. 2)
Bedroom – 1 of 3.35 m x 2.66 m has been constructed of brick
masonry. 3) Toilet – 1 of 2.62 m x 0.88 m has been constructed of
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 6 of 10 --
: 7 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
brick masonry. 4) An additional space has been made in the passage
of 0.41 m x 1.69 m of brick masonry. 5) Bedroom – 2 of 3.45 m x
2.44 m, 3.89 m x 1.16 m & 0.35 m x 1.63 m has been constructed of
brick masonry. 5a) Kitchen of 0.96 m x 4.29 m & 2.90 m x 2.82 m has
been constructed of brick masonry. 6) Toilet – 2 of 1.13 m x 2.68 m
has been constructed of brick masonry. 7) Living room of 3.75 m x
5.81 m has been constructed of brick masonry. 7) Living room of 7.42
m x 5.91 m has been constructed of brick masonry. 8) Bedroom – 3 of
4.03 m x 2.78 m has been constructed of brick masonry. 9) Bedroom
– 2 of 4.01 m x 2.72 m has been constructed of brick masonry. 10)
Backside passage of 3.04 m x 1.53 m has been constructed of brick
masonry. 11) A wash sunk has been made in the Verandah of 1.8 m x
0.83 m of bund wall. 12) Cylindrical tank has been placed at
Verandah on raised platform of 1.57 m x 1.12 m. 13) 2 no. of box
storage has been made in Verandah of 1.12 m x 0.86 m of brick
masnory. 14) A canopy of 1.89 m x 1.45 m has been made in the East
side Verandah. 15) A covered Verandah of 8.13 m x 2.28 m is made
at the West side of flat.’
14. The report further disclose that, as per the approved
plan extensive changes have been made in the internal layout
compared to the original plan. Walls have been brought down & new
walls have been constructed as per the survey done & it can be
clearly seen in the comparison of both the plans. Also previously the
actual usable carpet area was approx. 1200 sq.ft. & now the actual
usable carpet area is approx. 1524 sq.ft. All the above changes has
been done in Flat No. 2 which belongs to Krovsheba Holdings Pvt.
Ltd. of which Desiree & Zahir Attari are the tenants.
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 7 of 10 --
: 8 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
15. The plaintiff has filed the original plan and photographs.
The survey report compared with the original plan prima facie shows
that, the changes made by the defendants is of permanent nature
without the consent of the plaintiff.
16. In more particularly, Section 342 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, notice be given to the Commissioner of
intention to make addition in the building in terms of any addition,
alteration or repair of the building. But, in the present case,
defendants could not brought anything that intimation or prior
permission of the Commissioner has been obtained.
17. It is pertinent to note that, the letter dated 06/05/2025
that office bearer of Island Height Cooperative Housing Society
approached to defendants and given them information as set out in
the said letter. The reply letter dated 16/05/2025 sent by the plaintiff
to the advocate of defendants, the denial of title of the plaintiff as a
landlord and not ready to pay rent, taxes, permitted increase
regarding their conduct.
18. So far as balance of convenience is concerned, the
defendants themselves by way of letter of correspondence admitted
that, the plaintiff is landlord. But, thereafter denied the title. At one
point of time, they have sent the rent by way of cheque of Canara
Bank of Bandra. On the other hand, they along-with the society
denying the title and claiming that, they will pay rent to the society.
Defendants have also claimed that, society is their landlord.
Therefore, it appears that, the case of the plaintiff at the upper hand
than defendants.
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 8 of 10 --
: 9 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
19. The plaintiff had prima facie shows that, defendants
have also without the consent of the plaintiff carried out the
permanent addition and alteration in the suit premises.
20. Therefore, the plaintiff having apprehension that the
attempt made by the defendants by denying the title of the plaintiff
and in collusion with the society tried to redevelop the property
without the consent of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is having
balance of convenience in its favour.
21. So far as irreparable loss is concerned, in particularly the
report of Engineer and Surveyor disclose that, defendants have made
permanent addition and alteration as mentioned in the report
without the consent of the plaintiff. If defendants could not be
restrained from making any such changes which is of permanent
nature, the suit property will change its original nature.
22. Apart from it, if defendants could not restrain from
alienating the suit property, defendants with the collusion of the
society redevelop the suit property and claim their right over it.
Therefore, plaintiff has shown prima facie that, the balance of
convenience in its favour and if the temporary injunction could not
be granted suffer irreparable loss. Hence, I answer Point Nos. 1 to 3
in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:-
: ORDER :
1. The application is allowed.
2. Defendants are restrained by way of temporary
injunction from alienating, subletting, carrying any
permanent alteration and addition of Flat No. 6
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 9 of 10 --
: 10 : EXH-10 R.A.E. Suit No. 220 of 2025
admeasuring 1300 sq.ft. (including the area of
veranda illegally constructed and other illegal
construction made by defendants) in the suit
property/ building Dreamland, C.T.S. No. 224C, 36
Mount Mary Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050
till the decision of the suit.
3. Costs in cause.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
sd/-
(N. R. Gajbhiye)
Date : 03/08/2026 Judge, C. R. No.33(B.B.)
Order dictated on computer and typed on : 03/08/2026.
Order checked and signed on : 03/08/2026.
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Orders/8. August, 2026/03-08-2026/EXH-10 RAE 220 of 2025 - injunction.odt
-- 10 of 10 --