Order 5

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
CNR NO.MHSCA-30012572022
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.24
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO.24 OF 2023
M/s. Mittal Estate . . Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/S Exotica and anr. . . Defendants.
Coram : A.S. Pandagle, Judge
C.R.No.37
Date : 18/8/2025.
ORAL ORDER :
1. By way of this application defendant No.1 seeking relief
pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the plaintiff be
directed to carry out repairs to the suit premises as per the report
issued by Structural Engineer within such time as this Court deems
fit and proper under the supervision of his structural engineer.
Also seeking relief in case the plaintiff fails to carry out
necessary repairs as per defendants’ structural engineer within such
time as this Court deems fit and proper then the defendant No.1 be
allowed to carry out the repairs and deduct the expenses of such
repairs from the rent payable in accordance with Section 14(2) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Further the plaintiff be restrained by an order of
injunction from obstructing the defendant No.1, their servants,
workers and agents in carrying out repairs to the suit premises.
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 1 of 10 --
2
2. By filing present application it is contended by the
defendant No.1 that it is the statutory responsibility of the landlord
to carry out tenantable repairs to the premises let out by them. The
suit premises are situated just below the terrace of the building. The
overhead water tank of the suit building is installed on the terrace
very near the roof of the suit premises, which overflows on numerous
occasions. There has been heavy leakage and seepage of water into
the suit premises, especially during monsoon, which has resulted in
portions of the plaster of the ceiling slab and external walls of the
suit premises crumbling and falling down. This has resulted in a
great risk to the life and limb of the occupants of the suit premises.
The defendant has repeatedly requested the alleged co-owners of the
suit property to carry out tenantable repairs to make the suit
premises habitable. Messages have been sent by whats app to Mr.
Ramesh Mittal who is claiming to be one of the co-owner of the suit
property on 24/8/2020. The advocate for one of the alleged co-
owners Mr. Ramesh Mittal had issued a letter dated 10/2/2021 to
the defendant for which the defendant had sent reply dated
16/3/2021 to the advocate for one of the co-owners Mr. Ramesh
Mittal. In the said reply dated 16/3/2021 it is clearly pointed out
that the landlords have failed and neglected to maintain the suit
premises in good condition, which was in violation of Section 14 of
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It is further pointed out
that despite repeated pleas for two years, repairs were not carried
out to prevent leakage from the roof into the suit premises. This
resulted in serious danger to the occupants of the suit premises. It is
further contended that the plaintiffs have failed and neglected to
carry out the repairs to the suit premises. The defendant had warned
the alleged co-owners that the defendant No.1 would take up the
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 2 of 10 --
3
matter in MCGM and MCGM would prosecute the plaintiffs for not
carrying out tenantable repairs to the suit premises. As a counter
blast to the said warning the plaintiffs have filed this suit on false
and concocted grounds. The defendants have obtained a report of
Structural Engineer ‘Konstruct Engineers’, wherein they have given
the opinion that, major structural and allied repairs are required to
be carried out immediately on urgent basis.
3. It is further contended that it is the duty of the landlord
of the building that is over 30 years old to submit a structural
stability certificate under Section 353B of the MMC Act, 1888. The
defendant No.1 filed an application dated 12/4/2023 under RTI Act
to obtain certificate that is statutorily required to be submitted by the
landlord. The defendant No.1 has received reply from MCGM dated
16/5/2023 informing the defendant No.1 that no such report was
submitted by the plaintiffs.
4. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have miserably
failed in their statutory duty of repairing the suit premises. The
plaintiffs have exposed the defendants to great risk of loss of life,
limb and property. Inspite of repeated request made to the plaintiffs
and after furnishing copy of report of structural engineer, the
plaintiffs failed and neglected to carry out tenantable repairs to the
suit premises. After filing the written statement the defendant No.1
have obtained and estimate prepared by their structural engineer for
the said urgent tenantable repair works that are required to be
carried out. By advocate’s letter dated 2/8/2023 the defendant No.1
had again pointed out various tenantable repairs required to be
carried out in the suit premises and also furnished the copy of the
said estimate prepared by his structural engineer for carrying out the
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 3 of 10 --
4
said repairs. Inspite of receipt of the said letter, plaintiff failed to
carry out tenantable repairs to the suit premises.
5. It is further contended that the defendant No.1 has
never carried out any structural additions and/or alterations in the
suit premises at all and the suit premises was let out to the defendant
No.1 in the same structural lay out as it exist today, save and except
that the suit premises has deteriorated over a period of time on
account of failure of the plaintiffs to carry out tenantable repairs
despite several requests made by the defendant No.1. The failure on
the part of the plaintiffs has resulted in a grave risk to the life and
limb of the occupants of the suit premises. Inspite of correspondence,
the plaintiff is neither carrying out the repairs to the suit premises
nor allowing the defendant No.1 to carry out the tenantable repairs
to the various portion of the suit premises. Therefore it is necessary
and expedient that the plaintiffs be directed to carry out repairs to
the suit premises as per the report issued by Structural Engineer and
failing which the defendant No.1 be allowed to carry out the repairs
to the suit premises as suggested by the said Structural Engineer and
deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent payable in
accordance with Section 14(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999, and also seeking relief of temporary injunction, the plaintiffs
be restrained by an order and injunction from obstructing the
defendant No.1, their servants, workers and agents in carrying out
repairs to the suit premises.
6. On the other hand, plaintiffs by filing reply below
Exh.31 resisted the application and contended that application is not
maintainable, there is no prima facie case has been made out by the
defendants for grant of reliefs as prayed. The plaintiff denies that
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 4 of 10 --
5
the suit premises requires urgent tenantable repairs and that the said
defendant No.1 is receiving rent bills wherein exorbitant amounts
are being demanded without any justification as alleged in the said.
The plaintiff denies that the plaintiffs are not maintaining and/or
repairing the property as alleged. The plaintiff denies that as the
said defendant was objecting to exorbitant demands made without
carrying out tenantable repairs to the building as alleged. It is
submitted by the plaintiff that as the suit premises was locked and
unused for more than six months prior to filing of the suit, the bills
could not be issued to the defendants. It is denied by the plaintiffs
that the suit has been filed to harass and pressurize the defendants to
extort large amount as a rent, maintenance charges and permitted
increases as alleged. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that the
said water tank is there on the terrace since long. The plaintiff
denies that the roof of the suit premises which overflows on
numerous occasions as alleged. The plaintiffs also denies that there
has been leakage and seepage of water into the suit premises
especially during monsoon, which has resulted in portion of the
plaster of ceiling slab and external walls of the suit premises
crumbling and falling down as alleged. The plaintiff also denies of
any alleged risk to the life and limb of the occupants of the suit
premises. The plaintiffs denies of any alleged requests by the
defendants to carry out tenantable repairs to make the suit premises.
It is contended by the plaintiffs that on the contrary it is the
defendants is not allowing the plaintiffs to inspect the suit premises
despite their repeated requests they have by their advocate’s letter
dated 8/7/2024 asked for inspection of the suit premises as per
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. After the
inspection, the plaintiff will file detailed reply to this application. The
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 5 of 10 --
6
defendant with malafide intention did not annex letter dated
10/2/2021. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the report of
Structural Engineer is not correct. The plaintiff is not admitting the
report of alleged estimate prepared by the structural engineer for the
alleged urgent tenantable repair works that are required to be
carried out. It is denied by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 has
never carried out any structural additions and/or alterations in the
suit premises at all and the suit premises was let out to the defendant
No.1 in the same structural lay out as it exist today save and except
that the suit premises has deteriorated over a period of time on
account of failure of the plaintiffs to carry out tenantable repairs
despite of several requests made by defendant No.1.
7. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that under the
guise of repairs the defendant wants to carry out additions and
alterations of permanent nature to the suit premises by which it will
cause damage to the suit building and other galas. If the reliefs as
prayed for is granted, than more harm, prejudice and loss will be
caused to the plaintiffs which cannot be compensated in terms of
money. There is balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs,
the defendant has not made out any case for grant of reliefs as
prayed for. Therefore the application taken out by the defendant
No.1 may be dismissed with costs.
8. The defendant No.1 by filing affidavit-in-rejoinder
repeated, reiterated and confirmed whatever stated in his application
and deny all that is contrary to and inconsistent therein and
contended that he repeatedly requested the plaintiff to carry out
tenantable repairs in the suit premises.
9. From rival contentions of both the parties, following
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 6 of 10 --
7
points arises for my determination and I have recorded my findings
thereon with reasons are as under :
Sr.No. Points : Findings :
1. Does the defendant No.1 prove that it
has made out prima facie case in its
favour ?
. . In the negative.
2. Does the defendant No.1 prove that
irreparable loss would be caused to it
in case injunction is refused ?
. . In the negative.
3. Does the defendant No.1 prove that
balance of convenience lies in its
favour ?
. . In the negative.
4. Is the defendant No.1 entitled for
carrying out repairs to the suit
premises ?
. . In the affirmative.
5. What order ? .. As per final order.
: R E A S O N S :
AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 4 :-
10. Heard both sides.
11. By way of this application it is alleged by the defendant
No.1 that the plaintiffs are recovering exorbitant amount, the rent
amount increased continuously with every passing year without
carrying out tenantable repairs to the suit premises, it is the statutory
responsibility of the landlord to carry out tenantable repairs to the
suit premises let out by them, the suit premises just below the terrace
of the building, the overhead water tank of the suit building is
installed on the terrace very near to the roof of the suit premises,
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 7 of 10 --
8
which overflows on numerous occasions and therefore there has
been heavy leakage and seepage of water in the suit premises,
especially during monsoon which has resulted in portions of the
plaster of the ceiling slab and external wall of the suit premises
crumbling and falling down, this has resulted in a great risk to the
life and limb of the occupants of the suit premises. It is further
contended by the defendant No.1 that by letter dated 10/2/2021 the
defendant through advocate pointed out this fact but repairs were
not carried out to prevent leakage from the roof into the suit
premises. It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that inspite
of again and again pointing out various tenantable repairs required
to be carried out in the suit premises, the plaintiff failed to carry out
tenantable repairs to the suit premises. Alongwith this application,
the defendant No.1 filed copy of letter dated 2/8/2023 indicating
that by way of the said letter the defendant No.1 requested towards
the plaintiff tenantable repairs are required to be carried out urgently
to the suit premises. Even after service of notice, the plaintiff failed
to carry out tenantable repairs to the suit premises. Alongwith
written statement the defendant placed on record the structural
audit report of Konstruct Engineers which clearly indicates the
condition of the suit premises, the suit premises required external
and internal structural repair work. As per the provisions of Section
14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it is the duty of the
landlord to keep the premises in good repair, every landlord shall be
bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs. The
photographs filed alongwith written statement prima facie shows
that part of the ceiling plaster has fallen. The photographs itself
prima facie shows that the suit premises requires tenantable repairs.
By way of this application the defendant No.1 seeking injunction
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 8 of 10 --
9
against the plaintiffs that the plaintiff be restrained by an order and
injunction from obstructing the defendant No.1, their servants,
workers and agents in carrying out repairs to the suit premises. The
present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
eviction on the ground of subletting, non user, additions and
alterations of permanent nature, bonafide requirement of the suit
premises. There is one of the ground of additions and alterations of
permanent nature. If the injunction as prayed for is granted and at
the time of carrying out the tenantable repairs, the defendant No.1
will make additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit
premises, in such circumstances, definitely the plaintiff will suffer.
Therefore, I answered Point No.1 to 3 in the negative and Point No.4
in the affirmative and in answer to Point No.5, I proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
1. Application is partly allowed.
2. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
suit, the plaintiff is hereby directed to carry
out repairs to the suit premises as per the
report issued by Structural Engineer of
defendant, within period of 3 months under
the supervision of Structural Engineer.
3. Before carrying out necessary repairs to the
suit building, the plaintiff is directed to
furnish the name and address of the
Structural Engineer who will carry out the
said repairs.
4. If the plaintiff fails to carry out necessary
repairs as per the report of Structural
Engineer of defendant within 3 months, then
the defendant No.1 is allowed to carry out
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 9 of 10 --
10
repairs and deduct the expenses of such
repairs from the rate payable in accordance
with Section 14(2) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999.
Bandra - Mumbai. ( A.S. Pandagle )
Date : 18/8/2025. Judge, C.R.No.37.
.
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Aug-25/E-24-RAE-24-2023 (carry out repairs).odt
-- 10 of 10 --