1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5741 OF 2008 Vaishali Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Office : Ayodhya, 256, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Through its Managing Director Vijay Madhukar Joshi, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. As above. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Udyog Bhavan, Aurangabad Through its Administrator. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. A.M. Karad, Advocate for Petitioner and for applicant in C.A. Nos.6337/2010 & 8859/2010. Shri. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for sole Respondent. Shri. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate for applicant in Civil Application NO.8255/2010. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prays for following two reliefs:- (B) The notice dt. 13/9/2006 and 30/9/2006 issued by the Respondent under the provisions of Bombay Government Premises (eviction) Rules, 1960, be quashed and set aside. (C) The Respondent be directed to grant building permission to the petitioner company upon payment of additional lease premium, on plot No.28, Town Centre, CIDCO, New Aurangabad, as per Rules. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the agreement of lease executed between the petitioner and CIDCO, the petitioner is entitled to develop the property even after prescribed period stipulated in the agreement, by paying more premium amount to CIDCO. 3 Reference was made to clause 3(a) and 3(d) of the lease agreement and clause relating to extension of time. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notices issued by the competent authority of CIDCO under Rule 3 in Form 'A' & 'B' of Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Rules, 1960. The petitioner referred to the notice dated 30-08-2006 under Rule 3 Form 'A' of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Rules, 1960, directing the petitioner to evict the premises within one month from the date of service of notice, as the petitioner could not develop the plot having area 871.11 Sq.M. even after cancellation of allotment of the said land and accordingly contravenes the terms of the agreement. The petitioner further referred to the notice dated 13-09-2006 under Rule 3 in Form 'B' of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Rules, 1960. On 25-09-2006 the petitioner replied the CIDCO. The petitioner informed CIDCO that they are on the verge of settling the matter with the bank and apply for building permission. 4 4. From the proceedings of different Writ Petitions brought to our notice and placed before us, it transpires that as the petitioner could not pay dues to the bank, subject property was put to auction. The auction purchaser deposited some amount with the bank. 5. Copy of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Naresh H. Patil, & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) in Writ Petition Nos. 6156/2006 and 3728/2008, dated 03-07-2009 is placed on record. Para. Nos. 8 and 13 of order read as under : (8) After considering the submissions advanced, we find that all these issues relating to disputed questions of fact raised could be gone into by resorting to an appropriate remedy in the Civil Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the parties are entitled to approach the Civil Court or any other forum for redressal of their grievances. 5 (13) We direct the contesting parties that for a period of twelve weeks status quo in respect of subject-plot shall be maintained and no third party interests shall be created as regards the plot which was subjected to auction. The subject-plot shall not be released by the Bank in favour of borrower. This order would operate for a period of twelve weeks. 6. Shri. A.M. Karad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under such lease agreement, CIDCO would be entitled to extend the time to develop the plot by asking to pay some more premium amount. In the submissions of the Counsel, in the identical circumstances, Division Bench of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) by an order dated 27-08-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.616/2007, Writ Petition Nos.2417/2007 and 2419/2007 allowed the property of the allottees therein to be developed. Copy of the said order is at Exhibit-R-1 collectively, which is annexed to the proceedings of Civil Application No. 8859 of 2010. The learned Counsel 6 therefore, submitted that possession of the property is with the petitioner. The petitioner has settled the matter with the bank and by one time settlement, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid to I.D.B.I. Bank. 7. Shri. A.S. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for CIDCO submits that in view of the proceedings initiated under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Rules, 1960, possession of the property has been taken over by CIDCO. Panchnama is drawn to that effect. As the petitioner has failed to develop the property within stipulated time and contravened the provisions of the lease agreement, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the relief as prayed in the petition. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the auction purchaser submitted that in view of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.6156/23006 and 3728/2008, Special Civil Suit No. 376/2009 has already been filed in 7 the trial Court, wherein the bank, the petitioner and CIDCO are the defendants. Learned Counsel submits that the trial Court has passed order of status quo in respect of the subject property. 9. We have perused the documents placed on record, orders passed by this Court from time to time. In the facts of the case, and more particularly, in view of the order passed in W.P. Nos.6156/2006 and 3728/2008 dated 03-07-2009, it would not be reasonable and proper for this Court to observe anything on the issue relating to possession of said property. Civil Suit has already been filed in the trial Court. The trial Court has passed order of status quo in the said suit. The petitioner and CIDCO, both are claiming to be in possession of the subject property. 10. In the light of these facts and circumstances, we do not find it appropriate to allow the petitioner's request. 8 11. In exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Writ Petition is rejected. The petitioner may resort to alternative remedies, as permissible in law. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUNE10/wp-5741.08