- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2754 of 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2983 of 2004 Madhav Vitthal Angane ...Plaintiff V/s. Rajyog Developers Private Ltd. & Ors. ...Defendants H.R.Pawar for plaintiffs S.M.Khaire for defendant nos. 1 and 3 CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J 22nd July, 2008 22nd July, 2008 22nd July, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The dispute between the parties is essentially for a claim to transit accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof until permanent accommodation is offered. The plaintiff was the tenant in the original building. He had two tenements no. 12 and 26. The plaintiff had to be given two transit accommodations or compensation in lieu thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff had to be given two permanent accommodations. 2. The transit accommodation of Room No. 24 has been given to the plaintiff in lieu of Room No.12. Permanent accommodation of Room No. 302 has been given - 2 - against the transit accommodation of Room No. 24. 3. Against the plaintiff’s old Room No. 26, the plaintiff claims that no transit accommodation has been given. The defendants claim that Room No. 24 is given against old Room No.26. Permanent accommodation has been provided of 640 sq. feet in lieu of Room No. 26. The Plaintiff has not identified the tenement number of permanent alternate accommodation. 4. It is seen that two permanent alternate accommodations have been provided to the plaintiffs. One is tenement no. 302 and one is another tenement of 640 sq. feet. 5. One temporary accommodation was admittedly provided to the plaintiff which is tenement no.24. That tenement has been admittedly given in 2001. The plaintiff’s electricity bills show the plaintiff’s occupation in that tenement through the years. That tenement has been admittedly vacated in April 2008. 6. There is now no dispute between the parties that permanent alternate accommodation is provided. The dispute that remains is whether the defendant must pay compensation at the agreed rate of Rs. 5500/- per month payable in lieu of transit accommodation being agreed to - 3 - be given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must, therefore, show that no transit accommodation was given for one of the two old tenements. There is a dispute between the parties as to when tenement no. 302 was given as permanent alternate accommodation. The defendant contends that it was given in 2005. The plaintiff contends that it was given in April 2008. The plaintiff has vacated the temporary alternate accommodation in April 2008. If accommodation of tenement of 302 was given in April 2008 and the plaintiff has vacated the temporary accommodation no.24 in April 2008, the offer against atleast one of the old tenements is settled. It is for the defendant to show which is the other tenement that was offered to the plaintiff. Since the defendant contends that tenement no. 13 and 14 were offered, they must be proved by documentary evidence. 7. The plaintiff has shown two letters showing the offer of alternate accommodation of Room Nos. 13 and 14 which are to two other parties. The defendant has not produced copy letters offering temporary accommodation to the plaintiff for these two rooms. However, the plaintiff has not shown that plaintiff was offered permanent alternate accommodation in April 2008. Hence, the case of both the parties for the offer of permanent alternate accommodation of tenement of Room No.302 is - 4 - only based on their oral statements. If the plaintiff was offered permanent alternate accommodation no. 302 in 2005 as is the case of the defendant, he should have vacated the temporary accommodation no. 24 in 2005. If he has not vacated that temporary accommodation then he cannot be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 5500/- per month. Since the plaintiff has not shown in the Notice of Motion the precise date of allotment of the permanent accommodation, compensation cannot be determined in the Notice of Motion. Subject to the evidence produced by the plaintiff that can be determined only in the Suit. Hence, at present there can be no order passed in terms of prayers (b) or (c) of the Notice of Motion. Since permanent alternate accommodation is given and accepted, there can be no order in terms of prayer(a) also. Accordingly, there shall be no order on the Notice of Motion. No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J)