1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Petition No.139 of 2009 In the matter of Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent and Priyesh Girish Sampat ..Petitioner Mr.Sachin Masurkar with Mr.S.B.Gore for petitioner Mr.D.A.Barot for respondent CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 2nd September, 2009 P.C. 1 This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking winding up the respondent company Zenal Construction Co. Pvt.Ltd. The claim of the petitioner is based on the amount agreed to be paid by the respondent company to the petitioner under an agreement for permanent alternative accommodation dated 24th June,2007. 2 2 Under the said agreement the respondent who is to redevelop the D.N.Nagar Jyoti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. consisting of 20 flats has inter alia agreed to pay the monthly compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner. Under clause 9 of the agreement the petitioner has agreed to vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises occupied by him within 60 days from the date of execution of the said agreement dated 24th June 2007. 3 According to the petitioner the respondent company is wrongly disputing the payment of the said monthly compensation from the date of agreement i.e 24th June, 2007. According to the the petitioner had handed over possession of his premises to the society in June 2007. According to the respondent the petitioner handed over possession of his premises only on 31st March, 2008 and the monthly compensation 3 would, therefore, be payable to the petitioner only from 1st April, 2008. The respondent has produced a letter dated 31st March, 2008 addressed by the petitioner to the Hon. Secretary of the said society which reads thus: I am handing over vacant possession of my above mentioned flat to the society6/building for the purpose of redevelopment. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thanking you. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not admitting this letter. He relies on the payment vouchers issued by the respondent company dated 20th May, 2007. Admittedly, the payment voucher/s were prepared by the respondent prior to the date of execution of the agreement i.e. on 24th June 2007 and, therefore, the same will not help the petitioner to advance his case that he had 4 handed over possession of the premises to the society in June 2007. The above letter dated 31st March, 2008 belies the case of the petiti9oner that he had handed over the possession of his premises to the society in June 2007. Though according to the petitioner he gave up possession of his premises in June 2007 and that the letter issued by him on 31st March, 2008 handing over possession is not admitted by him, he has not even attempted to explain, where he had shifted after June 2007 i.e. after allegedly handing over possession of his premises to the society/builder. 3 In view thereof I have no hesitation in holding that there exists a bonafide dispute between the parties pertaining to the date of commencement for payment of monthly compensation to the petitioner which issue involves disputed questions of fact and can be decided only in a suit. The company 5 petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)