1 nms127-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.127 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.118 OF 2011 Sanjay B. Awhad ....Plaintiff V/s. Maharashtra Film, stage and Cultural Development Corporation Limited ....Defendant Mr.Sanjiv Sawant i/b Mr.B.K. Barve & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel with Mr.Shardul Singh i/b Mr.N.R. Bubna for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration that a notice dated 20.12.2010 is bad in law and that he has lawfully be in possession of a stall from 16.4.2009 under an agreement dated 15.3.2007 read with the orders of this Court dated 29.3.2007 and 29.4.2009. The plaintiff has also sought an order restraining the defendant from demolishing the stall and/or calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the same. 2. The agreement dated 15.3.2007 entitled the plaintiff to occupy the stall as a licensee for the purpose of distributing the dairy products from 15.3.2007 to 14.3.2010. Clause 1 provides :- “Thereafter, the license may stand extended for a further period of three years after expiry of every three years on 10% increase in the compensation amount”. The defendant 2 nms127-11 has decided not to extend the period of the license and has taken a policy decision to let the same out on license by inviting tenders. 3. Though the period of the agreement expired on 14.3.2010, I am inclined to permit the plaintiff to continue upto 20.4.2012. This is for the reason that prima-facie it appears that the defendant wrongly did not permit the plaintiff to occupy the premises from 15.3.2007. It permitted the plaintiff to occupy the same with effect from 28/29.4.2012 only after the orders were passed by this Court. 4. I am however, not inclined to grant a blanket injunction as prayed for, as the plaintiff does not have a right under the agreement to have the license extended in perpetuity. 5. It was further contended that the Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision not to let the premises out by inviting tenders. There is nothing on the record of this suit which establishes this contention. The communication dated 4.1.11 addressed to the plaintiff does not support the same. The communication is addressed by the In- Charge Manager of the Central Milk Scheme. It is difficult to come to a conclusion that this communication establishes a policy decision having been taken by the Government of Maharashtra not to invite tenders. The In-Charge Manager cannot possibly bind the defendant. 6. A document was sought to be tendered in Court, alleging discrimination against the plaintiff. The plaint is not filed on this basis. It is always open to the plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceedings if he is able to establish any such discrimination including by filing a Writ Petition. Similarly in the event of the 3 nms127-11 Government of Maharashtra having taken a decision or taking a decision as contended by the plaintiff, he is entitled to file appropriate proceedings in this Court. On the record, there is nothing suggested to that effect. 7. With the above clarification, the notice of motion is dismissed. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to continue to remain in occupation upto and including 28.4.2012 subject to his giving an undertaking on affidavit to vacate the same on 29.4.2012. The affidavit to be filed on or before 31.7.2011.The occupation charges shall continue to be paid on the terms of the agreement dated 15.3.2007.