1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 735 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 913 OF 2009 1. Ripu Daman Malhotra & anr. ... Appellants v/s M/s.Worli Industrial Properties Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.S.B.Prabhavalkar for the appellants. Mr.Munir Merchant for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against an order dated 11.6.2009 by which notice of Motion No.356 of 2009 has been dismissed. 2. The suit has been filed by the appellants claiming following reliefs:- (a) By judgment, decree and order of this Hon’ble Court it be declared that the defendant have no right to interfere in the enjoyment of the property Gala No.107 and B/19, T. V. Industrial Estate, 2 Laboratories, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025, by the plaintiff and the resolution dated 7.10.2008 item No. 6 i.e. “ No member will be allowed to lease out premises unless his/her dues of maintenance charges of the Company is paid and also No Objection Certificate must be obtained from the Company before any member rent out his/her premises”, is illegal, not valid and binding on the plaintiff. (b) It be declared that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to obtain the permission of the defendant for letting out premises i.e. Gala No.107 and B/19, by the plaintiffs. (c) In the alternative, the defendant have no right to withhold the permission to the plaintiff to let out the premises i.e. Gala No.107 and B-19. (d) That the defendant themselves and through their officers, servants be permanently restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the suit property i.e. Gala No.107 and B-19 and/or to let out the same to any third party. (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the defendant be restrained from obstructing the assignee/sub-letee of the plaintiff from entering the Gala No.107 and B-19, T.V. Industrial Estate, 248/A, S.K.Ahire Marg, Behind Glaxo Laboratories, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 or using and occupying the same.” 3. The main contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that the respondent Company of which the appellants are shareholders could not have passed a resolution by which the members are not allowed to lease their premises unless their dues of maintenance charges of the Company are paid and no objection certificate is issued by the Company. This resolution was passed on 7.10.2008. After the resolution was passed, a letter was 3 submitted by the appellants on 6.2.2009 seeking no objection certificate from the respondent in order to lease their property to a third party. 4. It is common ground that the appellants have filed a suit in this Court in which they have challenged the demands made by the respondents for interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the maintenance charges. That suit is pending and no interim reliefs have been granted in that suit. In these circumstances, in my view, the Trial Court has rightly refused interim relief to the appellants. The resolution as it stands indicates very clearly in Clause 6 that no member who is in arrears of maintenance charges would be entitled to rent or lease his premises unless a no objection certificate is issued by the respondent Company. Since the maintenance charges which include the interest thereon are outstanding, the respondents have refused the no objection certificate. In my view, had the Trial Court granted interim relief, it would have resulted in the final relief being granted at the interim stage. This is not a case where such relief should be granted at the interim stage. 5. Appeal from order stands dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 4