: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4266 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.538 OF 2009 Hasumati R. Shah .. Plaintiff V/s. Dev Leela Developers .. Defendant ..... Mr. Sanjeev Singh & Bhavin Bhatia for the plaintiff Mr. H.S.S. Murthy a/w. Piyush Shah for the defendant ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is a suit which is filed by the plaintiff for two reliefs. First relief is decree in the sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- towards the arrears of compensation and secondly for a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute an Agreement of Sale in respect of flats bearing No.302 in newly constructed building on final plot No.73, T.P.S. I, R.C. Patel Road, Off. Chandavarkar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. 2. The interim relief is claimed in furtherance of this relief. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff s entitlement of the accommodation is on the basis that the : 2 : plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant. The old building was to be demolished, some compensation agreed as a temporary measure and thereafter permanent alternate accommodation was to be provided in the newly constructed building / premises. Such an arrangement is breached and violated allegedly and that is how the instant suit. 3. The plaintiff prays for interim reliefs of appointment of Court Receiver and some monetary compensation. This is on the basis that the plaintiff has not been put in possession of the permanent alternate accommodation although all other occupants have been granted their rights. The plaintiff is excluded wrongfully and even the amount agreed as a temporary measure, has not been paid. 4. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the plaintiff has instituted false and frivolous proceedings in the City Civil Court and the Small Causes Court at Mumbai and even lodged complaints with the Bombay Municipal Corporation. He alleged that the New building is an unauthorized construction and has put all sorts of obstacles and impediments in the construction. All other persons / occupants / tenants had no problems with the commitments made to them nor did they object to the construction at site. The plaintiff had instituted such proceedings and therefore she is not entitled to any discretionary equitable relief. : 3 : 5. At the hearing of the notice of motion on the last occasion, I had indicated to the parties that the plaintiff being a Senior Citizen and is ready and willing to take appropriate decision, more so, when the defendant is ready and agreed to provide her with accommodation, should do so expeditiously. The residential flat meant for the plaintiff has not yet been allotted, sold or disposed off. It is being temporarily used as Office of the defendant and the defendant was still ready and willing to vacate and handover peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the matter was placed today. After some arguments, both sides have agreed that the plaintiff will pay to the defendant a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 28th February, 2010 and on such payment being received, the defendant would put the plaintiff in vacant and peaceful possession of the flat agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. In default by the plaintiff, the notice of motion as well as the suit stands dismissed without any further reference to the Court. 6. The plaintiff has been represented all throughout by her son who is her constituted attorney. He is present in the Court. He states that amount of Rs.5 lakhs which is paid by all other tenants / occupants of the building is the agreed sum and the plaintiff is willing to pay the same. In addition, the plaintiff is willing to abide by a condition that if the flat is sold on occupation and : 4 : possession being handed over to the plaintiff, in future, by her she would pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant as on par with that of the other tenants / occupants. This sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is an addition to the sum of Rs.5 lakhs and, therefore, needless to state that if the initial payment is not made, the plaintiff does not get any benefit of this order. The plaintiff s constituted attorney is ready and willing to abide by all these terms and it is on his specific statement and understanding of the consequences that this order has been passed. 7. Needless to state that the defendant is making a statement through Mr. Murthy that if the amount is paid, the possession would be handed over upon the receipt thereof within two weeks from the date of receipt of the sum of Rs.5 lakhs. The payment can be made even before 28th February, 2010 and nothing prevents parties from abiding by the agreement reached in Court. It is also agreed that all litigations which are pending against each other would stand withdrawn including the complaints made to Local Authorities. Notice of Motion disposed off in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)