1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1617 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2328 OF 2009 Bitcon India Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Maniben P. Chheda and Anr. ... Defendants. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani a/w. H. Rahman i/b. D.H. Law Assoc. for the Plaintiffs. Ms. Yogini Gada i/b. Harakhchand & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 15th OCTOBER 2009. P.C. :- In a Suit which is filed by the Plaintiffs in this Court, for a declaration that the Defendants are bound and liable to specifically perform their agreement and vacate premises bearing No.4B, first floor, Somaiya House, 10, N.P. Thakkar Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 and for permanent injunction so also for damages, an interim application was made during the course of which parties negotiated for a overall settlement. 2. The basis upon which the Suit has been filed is that the Defendants are tenants of a building which requires to be pulled down and thereafter, reconstructed. The Defendants were tenants in respect of the tenament/flat in this building. The Plaintiffs have taken over the rights of re-construction and had agreed to provide permanent alternate accommodation to 2 the Defendants. However, when everybodyelse in the building vacated but for the Defendants they had to institute the present Suit. Parties have agreed that the Defendants would vacate the premises in lieu of the permanent alternate accommodation of the specifications, area and dimensions more particularly, set out in the terms so also on the plan which may be approved by the local authorities. Presently, the Plaintiffs have stated that they would move the Bombay Municipal Corporation for modification of the plans so as to provide a flat as permanent alternate accommodation to the Defendants with the amenities, area and specifications set out in the consent terms. 3. The terms have been fully explained to both sides. The Plaintiffs are a Private Limited Company and they have duly authorized their Director to sign these terms. As far as the Defendants are concerned, Defendant No.2 is present in Court. He has signed the terms on behalf of both Defendants. Defendant No.2 is the son of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also has been explained the terms with their full implications and consequences. 4. It has been stated that if the Defendants do not vacate the premises in the manner set out in the terms so also within the time provided consequences are that the Court Receiver shall stand appointed forthwith of the flat and he shall have full power including to take physical possession of the property/flat and hand over the same to the Plaintiffs. Even 3 all such terms have been understood with full implications and consequences. 5. In the light of these terms, the Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw a Suit filed in the Court of Small Causes. 6. Needless to state that in the event, the Defendants do not vacate, then, in addition to executing the decree pursuant to these terms, the Plaintiffs would be at liberty to file such proceedings as are permissible in law including in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 7. The consent terms duly signed by Advocates and parties are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 8. Undertakings in clauses 1,2,5,6,10,11,12 and 16 are accepted. 9. Needless to clarify that if the Plaintiffs do not comply with the terms recorded and presented to this Court, then, in addition to all other remedies available to them in law, Defendants can move this Court in its contempt jurisdiction and seek such reliefs as are permissible in law. 10. Order in terms of consent terms. The Suit and the Notice of Motion are disposed off. Refund of Court fees as per Rules. No order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)