1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. SUIT NO.2180 OF 1997 Jagdish Vamanrao Rane. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Ravinda Laxmidas Panjwani & Ors. ...Defendants. .... Mr.V.N. Bodke i/b. M/s.Chitnis Vaithy & Co. for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. July 6, 2009. P.C. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 23rd August 1991 in respect of property bearing Survey No.34, Hissa No.6, admeasuring 20,000 sq. yards at Borivali. The agreement to sell was executed by the owners of the property at and for a consideration of Rs.32 lakhs. At the execution of the agreement, four cheques each in the amount of Rs.50,000/- were handed over. According to the Plaintiff, on the date of the agreement, the Defendants were not in vacant and peaceful possession of the property and the property was declared as a slum. The case of the Plaintiff is that upon the execution of the agreement, he settled the 2 claim of the other co-owners and entered into an agreement for permanent alternative accommodation with 225 slum dwellers on 6th April 1993. Deeds of Conveyance dated 28th February 1994 were executed with two co-owners viz., Mahendra Laxmidas Panjwani and Shakuntala Panjwani against the payment of Rs.8 lakhs each. Other claims of the co-owners are stated to have been settled upon which a declaration came to be issued in that regard in 1994-95. Permission was obtained for the development of the property under the Slum Improvement Scheme and under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The Defendants purported to terminate the agreement by a notice dated 26th April 1994 and forfeited the amount paid by the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff is that an amount of Rs. 10,57,250/- was paid to the Defendants before the termination of the agreement. According to the Plaintiff, as on the date of the termination of the agreement, he had initially carried out construction of one building consisting of a ground floor and five upper floors, whereas 3 the second building had been constructed upto the plinth level. After the termination of the agreement, negotiations were alleged to have taken place and it is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants had never obstructed the work of construction. The Defendants had addressed, however, a complaint dated 18th January 2001 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The complaint came to be revoked on 21st June 2002. By their letter dated 21st June 2002, all the Defendants withdrew their complaint and stated that they have no objection to the work of construction that has been carried out by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has averred that he has made part payment of a consideration of Rs.10,57,250/- and he is ready and willing to pay the balance and to perform his part of the contract. According to the Plaintiff, construction of eight buildings has already been carried out, while two buildings are still to be constructed. 225 tenants are stated to have been rehabilitated in the newly constructed buildings and they have been placed in vacant possession. About 500 flats are stated to have been sold in four buildings consisting of ground floor and five upper floors. Occupation 4 certificates of seven buildings are stated to have been received. The Plaintiff has stated that despite the notice of termination, the Defendants accepted further consideration and permitted the Plaintiff to carry out the work of construction. The Defendants have been served with the writ of summons, but have not filed appearance or contested the proceedings. The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of the Examination-in-Chief and a compilation of the original documents on the record. The claim of the Plaintiff has been duly established. The Plaintiff has proved that (i) pursuant to the agreement dated 23rd August 1991 part consideration was accepted by the Defendants; (ii) The Plaintiff has taken steps to comply with his obligations in pursuance thereof; and that (iii)the Defendants, despite the letter of termination, accepted the consideration and withdrew their objection to the development being carried out by the Plaintiff. By a letter dated 21st June 2002, the Defendants have informed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority that they have no objection to the work of 5 construction being carried out by the Plaintiff and have withdrawn their complaint. The Plaintiff has duly established his readiness and willingness to perform the agreement. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c ) and (e) subject to the Plaintiff depositing the balance consideration before the Prothonotary & Senior Master within a period of four weeks from today. The Defendants shall execute the Deed of Conveyance within a period of four weeks of the date of intimation of the deposit of the balance consideration. In the event that the Defendants fail to execute the Deed of Conveyance within the period stipulated, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, shall stand appointed Receiver in order to execute the Conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff and take steps accordingly. .......