Smt. Suman Bhairavnath Mulik & Ors. v. Deepak Suryakant Devlekar & Ors.

Mr. S.A. Sawant, for the Applicants. Mr. N.N. Gawankar i/b Arfan Sait, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2010. P.C.

This is Civil Revision Application directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 2.3.2007 passed by the District Judge, Ratnagiri in Civil Appeal No.118 of 2004.

The District Judge, Ratnagi had allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 4.11.2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Ratnagiri in regular Civil Suit No.286 of 2002.

The Respondents to this Civil Revision Application are the original Plaintiffs/Appellants. They had filed a suit for possession of shop bearing municipal house No.1134, Survey No. 335 hissa no./3/1 in Ratnagiri. It is their case that they want possession of the premises for 2 demolition so as to erect the new building on the premises. They have also filed the suit on the ground their bonafide requirement.

The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by parties held that the Respondents before me have not been able to prove their case as set out in the plaint.

Consequently, their suit was dismissed and that is how the Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal to the District Court. The District Court passed a decree of possession and directed that the Applicants before me to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the decree holder- Plaintiffs.

The Lower Appellate Court directed that the decree is subject to the provision of section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,

1999. It is aggrieved by this Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court that the Defendants to the suit filed this Revision Application.

During the pendency of the same both sides have executed the consent terms and have presented them to the Court. Both sides desired that order be made in terms of the consent terms duly signed by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and Respondent No.1.

Shri Sawant appearing on behalf of the Applicants seeks leave to delete the Applicant No.2 from the array of parties. The name of Applicant No.2 is deleted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. Equally, Shri Gavankar, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 1 states that the Respondent No.1 is present in the Court and both Respondent Nos.2 and 3 agreed to be bound by the consent terms filed in the Court. Necessary affidavits of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 so that bind them by all stipulations in the consent terms and the order made in furtherance thereof will be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Statement made by Shri Gavankar is accepted.

The consent terms provide that the Respondents would obtain fresh permission from the Municipal Council so as to undertake demolition and reconstruction/development work at site. To enable the Respondents to carry out the construction, the Applicants agreed to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of fresh permission and copy of the sanctioned plan. Further, the Respondents have undertaken to construct new building and complete the same within the period of six months from the date of the Applicants’ handing over possession.

There are other stipulations in the consent terms. Essentially they record that the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in terms of section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall be complied with and after having perused the record, I am further satisfied that the decree for possession can be sustained because the landlord has necessary funds for the purpose of erection of new building. Both plan and drawings have been properly prepared and parties would abide by relevant 4 municipal laws and regulations. Further, I am satisfied that the landlord would comply with his obligation and put the Applicants in vacant and peaceful possession of the reconstructed premises. In other words, the requirement of sections-16(1)(i)(6) and (7) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are complied with.

The consent terms duly signed by the Applicant Nos.1 and 3, and Respondent No.1, so also their Advocates are taken on record and marked “X” for identification.