1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4653 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3301 OF 2007 Varsha Rajan Sujanani and another ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Sailee Developers and another .. Defendants. ..... Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.C. Shah i/b Lilani Shah & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. S.U. Kamdar with Mr. Rohit Shetty and Mr. Sachin Mhatre for Defendant No.2. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 10th January, 2008. P.C. : This order will govern the Motion taken out by the Plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance praying for an interlocutory order of injunction and/or appointment of a Receiver. By consent, the Notice of Motion has been taken up for hearing at this stage since the pleadings in the Motion are complete. 2. The suit for specific performance is based on a letter of allotment dated 15th March, 2001, (Exhibit A to the Plaint) under 2 which the Defendants agreed to allot commercial premises admeasuring 5,000 sq. ft. on the third floor of a proposed building on final plot numbers 45, 45A, 45B and 45C situated at TPS II, S.V. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. An amount of Rs. 1 Crore was paid by a cheque dated 16th July, 2001. The receipt of the consideration is not in dispute. Letters were addressed by the Plaintiffs on 9th January, 2007, 22nd January, 2007 and 9th March, 2007 upon which the suit for specific performance has been instituted. Affidavits in reply have been filed by the Second Defendant. It has been stated that the Municipal Corporation is the owner of the plot and a co-operative housing society has been formed by the occupants. According to the Second Defendant, negotiations had taken place for the redevelopment of the property in or about 2001 under a slum rehabilitation scheme. The society of slum dwellers was ready to execute the necessary agreement in favour of the Defendants, and while the commercial terms were being worked out between the Defendants and the owners, the discussions had almost reached the stage of finality. However, it has been stated that the agreement has not fructified. It has been stated that at present there is no possibility of the Defendants executing any agreement in future in respect of the land. 3 3. In the rejoinder which has been filed by the Plaintiffs reliance has been placed inter alia on the brochure of the Defendants which showed the plan of the proposed building and on a public notice which was issued on 19th August, 2005 by the advocates for the investigation of the title of the property. 4. At this stage, there is no material before the Court to indicate that the statement which has been made in the two affidavits filed on behalf of the Second Defendant is erroneous or untrue. The statement that has been made on affidavit before the Court is that as a matter of fact the slum rehabilitation scheme has not fructified into any final agreement with the developer and that neither do the Defendants have any agreement for development at present nor is there any possibility at present of the Defendants executing any agreement in future with the owners. In that view of the matter, no question can arise either for the appointment of a Receiver or for the grant of an injunction since from the affidavit of the Defendants it emerges that the Defendants have no interest in the property. 4 5. During the course of hearing of the Notice of Motion, counsel appearing for the Defendants had expressed on instructions his readiness and willingness to refund the amount of Rs.1 Crore paid by the Plaintiffs subject to the Plaintiffs giving up the suit for specific performance. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiffs are advised not to forgo their claim for specific performance at the present stage. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, no case has been made out for the grant of interlocutory relief in the Notice of Motion which shall accordingly stand dismissed.