Order 4

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: ..1..
(CNR No.MHSCA3-000765-2024)
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.14
IN
R.A.E.&.R. SUIT NO.276 OF 2024
Mr. Sanjay Devraj Shah .... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Subhash Satyanarayan Singh …. Defendant
Mrs. Ketki Belapurkar for M/s. K. R. Parekh & Co., Ld. Advocate for
the plaintiff.
Shri. Suryakant K. Pise for S.K.Pise & Associates, Ld. Advocate for the
defendant.
Coram : Shri. S. N. Godbole, Judge.
C.R.No.34 (BB).
Date :10.09.2025.
ORAL ORDER :-
1. This application is filed by the defendant for granting
permission to the defendant to repair the suit premises and for grant
of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff, their servants,
agents or any person or persons claiming through or under the
plaintiff from causing any obstructions to the defendant in carrying
out the repairs in the suit premises.
Facts, which gave rise to the present application are as
under:
2. The defendant is tenant in respect of the suit premises
and he is in use, occupation and possession thereof. The status of the
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 1 of 9 --
..2..
plaintiff is under cloud as his ownership is challenged by the real
owners of the suit property in Court of law. The suit premises is in
good condition, but at some of the place vegetation had grown.
Internal and external plasters was damaged. There were leakages
marks and plumbing and drainage were deteriorated. At some places
stills/bricks are visible, which has been identified as dangerous or
ruinous and likely to fall. In view of the same, the defendant
informed to the plaintiff to carry out repairs u/s.342 of MMC Act and
to prop the suit premises to prevent any danger.
3. As per Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 it is duty of the landlord to keep the premises in a good
condition. The plaintiff is therefore under an obligation to make
necessary repairs. In spite of the said fact, the plaintiff is causing
obstructions to the defendant to carry out the repairs. Balance of
convenience and equity is in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the
defendant is entitled for an injunction and repairing the suit
premises. Hence, this application.
4. The plaintiff has filed his reply at Exh.17 and objected
the application. The plaintiff denied that the defendant is in use and
occupation of the suit premises. He further denied about causing
obstruction to the defendant. He also denied that the suit premises
requires any repairs. In short, the plaintiff has denied all the
allegations made against him in this application.
5. According to the plaintiff, this application is taken out
with an ulterior and malafide motives to misguide and confuse the
Court. The defendant is also tenant in respect of Room No.8 in the
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 2 of 9 --
..3..
said chawl for which separate suit being RAE&R Suit No.275 of 2024
is filed along-with present suit. The defendant is deliberately and
malafidely trying to create confusion in the matters by interchanging
the documents referred therein. The defendants having paid rent to
the family member of the plaintiff, is now estopped from alleging
what is stated in the application. The defendant is not concerned
with the internal family arrangement of the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff denied that there is any leakage or any
other irregularities as stated in the application. The plaintiff has
never caused obstruction to the defendant. As the defendant did not
recognize the plaintiff as his landlord, there was no question of
granting any permission as requested. The defendant cannot seek an
injunction in the plaintiff’s suit. Hence, requested to reject the
application with costs.
7. In the context of aforesaid contention of the plaintiff and
the defendant, the following points arise for determination to which,
I have given my findings together with the reasons thereon as under:-
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the defendant is entitled to carry
out repairs in the suit premises as prayed?
In the negative.
2. Whether the defendant has made out prima
facie case?
In the negative.
3. Whether balance of convenience lies in
favour of the defendant?
In the negative.
4. Whether the defendant would suffer
irreparable loss, if injunction is rejected?
In the negative.
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 3 of 9 --
..4..
5. Is the defendant entitled for injunction as
prayed?
In the negative.
6. What order ? Application is
rejected as per
final order.
: R E A S O N S :
AS TO POINT NO. 1:
8. The Learned Advocate for the defendant submitted that
the suit premises is in good condition but at some of the place
vegetation had grown. Internal as well as external plasters was
damaged. There were leakages marks and the plumbing and drainage
were deteriorated. At some places stills/ bricks are visible which has
been identified as dangerous and likely to fall. Therefore, it is
required to repair the same. Hence, he requested for allowing the
application.
9. On the other hand, the plaintiff has denied that any
repairing to the suit premises is required. According to him, the suit
premises is in good condition. The defendant has denied that the
plaintiff is his landlord. Hence, requested to reject the application.
10. By way of this application, the defendant is seeking
relief for permission to repair the suit premises. In this respect,
Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is relevant and
important one. Thus, said provision is mentioned for perusal as it is
as under:-
Section 14 -Landlords’ duty to keep premises in good
repairs :-
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 4 of 9 --
..5..
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
for the time being in force and in the absence of an
agreement to the contrary by the tenant, every
landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good
and tenantable repair.
(2) If the landlord neglects to make any repairs,
which he is bound to make under sub-section (1),
within a reasonable time after a notice of fifteen days
is served upon him by post or in any other manner
by a tenant or jointly by tenants interested in such
repairs, such tenant or tenants may themselves make
the same and deduct the expenses of such repairs
from the rent or otherwise recover them from the
landlord:
Provided that, xxxxxxx.
Provided further that, xxxxxx.
(3) xxxxxxx.
11. It is clear from the said provision that every landlord is
bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs and if the
landlord neglects to make any repairs, which is bound to make under
sub section (1), within reasonable time after a notice of 15 days is
served upon him. It is pertinent to note here that it is not the case of
the defendant that he has given any such notice to the plaintiff for
repairing the suit premises. Therefore, admittedly the said defendant
has not served any such notice to the landlord plaintiff as stated in
sub-section (2). Thus, it is clear that the defendant has failed to
comply in respect of giving and serving 15 days prior notice to the
plaintiff. Hence, in such situation, it would not be just and proper to
permit the defendant to repair the suit premises.
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 5 of 9 --
..6..
12. Apart from this, the Most importantly, the defendant has
made averments in para 3 of written statement that there is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and
defendant. When the defendant himself is denying the relationship of
landlord and tenant between them in respect of the suit premises,
thus, in such situation, Section 14 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 will also not be useful to the defendant for directing the
plaintiff to repair the suit premises.
13. It is pertinent to note here that the plaintiff is seeking
the prayer to declare that the defendant has right and grant
permission to carry out the repairs in the suit premises, which cannot
be granted in view of the above discussion. Thus, it is not just and
proper to allow the defendant to repair the suit premises as prayed.
Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NOS. 2 TO 6:
14. Needless to mention here that the relief of temporary
injunction is an equitable relief. Therefore, it is the duty of the
plaintiff to show prima facie case, balance of convenience in his
favour and irreparable loss, if the application is not allowed. Unless,
these ingredients are proved, the plaintiff is not entitled for the
temporary injunction. It has to be borne in the mind that there should
be the serious disputed question between the parties. The
interference by the Court in the said question or dispute should be
necessary. In that case only, such application for temporary
injunction can be allowed.
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 6 of 9 --
..7..
15. According to the defendant, the suit premises requires
repairing and the plaintiff is causing obstruction to the defendant to
carry out the repairs in the suit premises. Thus, it is necessary to
restrain the plaintiff temporarily from causing obstruction to repair
the suit premises. On the other hand, the plaintiff has denied that he
obstructed to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant
cannot seek an injunction in the plaintiff’s suit. Admittedly, the
defendant has not filed the counter-claim in this matter. Thus,
considering the submission of both the side, it is necessary to see first
whether the defendant can seek the relief of injunction in the
plaintiff’s suit without filing counter-claim.
16. By way of this application, the defendant is seeking
temporary injunction. Thus, in this regard the provision under Order
XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is relevant and
important one. Therefore, the said provision is referred as under for
perusal:-
Order XXXIX Rule 1 - Cases in which temporary
injunction may be granted-
(1) Wherein any suit it is proved by affidavit or
otherwise:
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger
or being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party
to the suit, or wrongfully, sold in execution of a
decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to
remove or dispose of his property with a view to
defrauding his creditors,
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 7 of 9 --
..8..
(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the
plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in
relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the
Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to
restrain such act, or make such other order for the
purpose of staying and preventing the xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx….
(2) xxx xxx xxx xxx ….
17. It appears from the aforesaid provision that the plaintiff
can seek the injunction under Clause 1 (a) to (c) of Rule 1, Order
XXXIX of the CPC. However, the defendant can seek the relief of
injunction only in the circumstance mentioned under Clause 1 (a) of
Rule 1, Order XXXIX of the CPC and not under Clause 1 (b) and (c)
of Rule 1, Order XXXIX of the CPC. Thus, it seems that the defendant
can seek the relief of temporary injunction only when any property in
dispute in a suit is in danger or being wasted, damaged or alienated
by any party to the suit, or wrongfully, sold in execution of a decree.
18. It is important to note here that it is not the case of the
the defendant that the suit premises is in danger or being wasted,
damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully, sold in
execution of a decree. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
defendant that the plaintiff is obstructing him to repair the same. The
relief of the defendant does not comes under Clause 1 (a) of Rule 1,
Order XXXIX of the CPC. Thus, the defendant is not entitled for
injunction as prayed.
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 8 of 9 --
..9..
19. Apart from this, in view of my finding to point No.1 in
the negative, the defendant is not entitled to allow him to repair the
suit premises as prayed. The defendant has not prima facie shown
that the plaintiff has obstructed him to carry out the repairs. The
defendant has disputed the relationship of tenant and landlord
between him and the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant has failed to
show prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in his favour.
Thus, no irreparable loss will be caused to the defendant, if the
injunction as prayed is not granted. Hence, I answer point Nos.2 to 5
in the negative and in order to answer the point No.6, I proceed to
pass the following order:-
: O R D E R :
1. Application Exhibit No.14 is rejected.
2. Costs in cause.
Place : Mumbai (S. N. Godbole)
Date : 10.09.2025 Judge,C.R.No.34(BB).
Order Dictated & Typed on : 10.09.2025
Order Checked & Signed on : 10.09.2025
/home/steno34/CR-34 HHJ SNG/2025/September/Exh-14 in RAE S.No.276-24 repairs and inj.odt
-- 9 of 9 --