1 wp1635-1996 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1635 OF 1996 Shri Sanjay Atmaram Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande i/b Mr.S.R.Page for the petitioner Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for the respondents CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 15th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the letter dated 6.6.96 by which MHADA the respondent asked the petitioner to surrender the tenement at Unnat Nagar 2, Goregaon, Bombay within seven days. – The relevant facts are : 2. The present petitioner is one Sanjay Atmaram Shinde. His father Atmaram Shinde was in the employment of the Housing Board. As employee of the Housing Board, he was allotted a tenement at Unnat 2 wp1635-1996 Nagar-2, Goregaon. This premises was occupied by him. It appears that by communication dated 23.4.1987, the Estate Manager of the Housing Board permitted one Pradeep Atmaram Shinde who was working as a Manager in Choksi Enterprises to occupy the tenement at Unnat Nagar. It appears that this Pradeep was son of the original petitioner, Atmaram Shinde. It further appears that MHADA allotted a plot of land to a Co- operative Society by name D.N.Ratna Samuha Co-operative Housing Society for construction of tenement. A condition for being a member of this society was that the employees of MHADA who were occupying staff accommodation would vacate the staff accommodation. Deceased Atmaram Shinde had given an undertaking dated 9.12.85 that on securing accommodation from the Co-operative Housing Society, he will hand over peaceful possession of the Unnat Nagar quarters to MHADA. 3. It appears that on 5.9.94 a communication was addressed to deceased Atmaram Shinde that he was held ineligible for membership of Co- operative Society because of his undertaking to hand over the staff quarter at Unnat Nagar-2 to MHADA but he did not hand over the tenement to MHADA. On the contrary, he misguided MHADA and got the tenement transferred in favour of his son. By that communication, the transfer of the tenement in favour of the son of original petitioner Atmaram Shinde was cancelled. He was also informed that he is also not eligible for membership of the Society. However, it appears that 3 wp1635-1996 thereafter again MHADA changed its decision and by communication dated 6.6.96 informed Atmaram that he was declared to be ineligible for membership of the Society because he did not hand over possession of the staff quarter at Unnat Nagar. However, now an opportunity is being given to him to return the tenement at Unnat Nagar and to be a member of the Co-operative Society. 4. It is at this juncture that the original petitioner came to this court. The case of the petitioner is that transfer of the staff quarter at Unnat Nagar was permitted in the name of his son asking him to surrender that tenement for getting accommodation in the premises of the society is not reasonable. What is pertinent to be noted is that the cancellation of transfer of tenement in favour of his son is not challenged either by his son or by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for MHADA has informed us that today the premises in the building of the Society is in possession of family of Atmaram and similarly staff quarter at Unnat Nagar is also occupied by them. Petitioner Atmaram in the petition claims that premises at Unnat Nagar are in possession of his son Pradeep and therefore, he cannot be asked to surrender the premises. On perusal of the order dt.8.10.99 passed in Notice of Motion No.156 of 1999 which was taken out in this petition shows that the petitioner Atmaram had stated before this court that he is willing to vacate the Unnat Nagar premises. The relevant sentence reads 4 wp1635-1996 as under: The petitioner wants one tenement in the reconstructed “ structure in the name of his son viz. Sanjay Atmaram Shinde added respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner will vacate the tenement no.131 within a period of two weeks of the notice from the society. ” 6. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner Atmaram had claimed in the petition that the tenement is with Pradeep. He undertook before this court to vacate the same if the premises in the building of the society are allotted in the name of Sanjay who has substituted himself as petitioner in this petition. 7. From the record, it is revealed that what was allotted to Atmaram was staff quarter because he was in employment of MHADA. Neither his son Pradeep nor his son Sanjay are in the employment of MHADA. The premises are Unnat Nagar staff quarters. The premises at Andheri is a tenement in a building constructed on a plot which was allotted by MHADA to Co-operative Society. Despite this position, deceased Atmaram wanted allotment of tenement in the Society s premises in favour of his ’ son who is not in the employment of MHADA. It is thus, clear from the record that Atmaram and his two sons have been guilty of 5 wp1635-1996 misrepresenting facts and also misleading this court from time to time and obtaining favourable orders. They have continued to occupy the premises at Unnat Nagar as also the Andheri premises though they are not entitled to both the premises. They have clearly misused the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court and have obtained favourable interim orders by making misrepresentation. In this situation, in our opinion, not only the petition is liable to be dismissed but exemplary costs have to be imposed on the petitioner to discourage the litigants from misusing the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this court. 8. Petition is thus, dismissed. 9. Petitioner is directed to pay to MHADA as and by way of costs of this petition Rs.25,000/- (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (K.K. TATED, J)