IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1485 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 976 OF 2009. Manohar R. Dixit & Ors. ..... ..... ...Plaintiffs V/s Ramesh G. Lanjekar & Ors. ..... ..... ..Defendants. Mr.V.V.Tulzapurkar, Sr. Adv. With Mr.A.S.Doctor, i/by M/s.Kanga & Co., Adv. for the plaintiffs. Mr.C.P.Deogirikar, Adv. for the defendant No.2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24th April, 2009. PC: The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13.9.74 which gives the plaintiffs an option to purchase the suit property during subsistence of the lease which is for a period of 98 years. 2. By a lease deed dated 21.11.58 the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 together were granted the lease of the suit property excluding certain area for a period of 15 years by defendant No.1 and one Shrikanth Doshi who has since expired and is represented by his heirs viz. Widow-defendant No.2. When the first lease deed was executed on 21.11.58 simultaneously an agreement of sale was also executed n regard to the sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and the lessees were to exercise the right of purchase under the said agreement of sale prior to expiry of period of two years 1 from the date of expiry of the lease. The plaintiffs did not exercise right to purchase the suit property under the agreement of sale executed simultaneously with the lease deed dated 21.11.58. However another lease was executed by lessors in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No.3. The said lease is registered lease deed for a period of 98 years commencing from 13.11.74 and the lease deed is very much in force. Under the lease deed dated 13.9.74 the lessees have exercised the option for purchase of the suit property for consideration of Rs.75,000/-. The lessees have exercised the option for purchase of suit property by issuing notice on 3.5.07. The plaintiffs have claimed that sum of Rs.60,000/- were already deposited with the lessors and after adjusting the same offered the balance sum of Rs.15,000/-. Permissibility of adjusting the said amount is referred to in the lease deed itself. Be that as it may, at later stage when defendant No.2 disputed the payment of sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of deposit the plaintiffs have offered to pay entire amount of Rs.75,000/-. The defendant No.2 by her reply dated 13.6.07 disputed the execution of lease deed and consequently the right created in favour of lessees and the option for purchase of the suit property for consideration of Rs.75,000/-. From the reply notice sent by defendant No.2 it appears that the 2nd defendant was not in know of dealings and thus has chosen to deny all the averments made in the notice. What is relevant to note is that defendant No.1 viz. one of the lessors who is alive has not disputed the claim made by the 2 plaintiffs exercising their option to purchase the property pursuant to the terms of lease deed dated 13.9.74. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 has not replied the notice served by the plaintiffs dated 3.5.07. It is only the legal heir of the deceased lessor viz. Defendant No.2 who is disputing the plaintiffs' right and option to purchase the property under the terms of the lease deed dated 13.9.74. Both the lease deeds i.e. dated 21.11.58 and 13.9.74 are registered documents. Prima facie plaintiffs have made out a case for purchase of suit property under the terms of the registered lease deed dated 13.9.74. It is also prima facie seen that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. I am also satisfied that in the event if ad-interim relief is not granted plaintiffs would be put to suffer irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiffs for grant ad-interim relief. By the present notice of motion plaintiffs are seeking an order to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property. In the result notice of motion is made absolute and allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). At this stage learned counsel for defendant No. 2 submits that the plaintiffs need to be put to terms while granting interim relief and in his submission plaintiffs need to be restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property by themselves. Hence liberty is sought for taking out notice of motion for claiming appropriate reliefs against the plaintiffs. Liberty as prayed for is granted. 24.4.09 3