Kusum Harilal Soni vs Chandrika Nandlal Mehta & Anr

4. The appellant had submitted that on 1.10.1987 respondent no. 1, Smt. Chandrika Nandlal Mehta came to be the owner of the flat and entry of ownership was transferred in her favour on 23.2.1995. As the licence agreement had expired with respect to the vacation of flat No. F-201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai, eviction proceedings had been initiated under section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, in which respondent no. 1 made a statement that there was another flat being Flat No. 408 Saidham Co-operative Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli (West), Mumbai which was purchased in the name of herself and her daughter Chetana. The competent authority had passed the eviction order on 6.12.2000. The appeal had been rejected by the High Court against the order of the competent authority for eviction and compensation on 10.4.2001. On 8.5.2001, in the SLP preferred by respondent no. 1, an interim ex-parte stay order was granted by this Court. Thereafter on 26.6.2001, in order to defeat the order of eviction and payment of compensation, respondent no. 1 had entered into so-called agreement which is an unregistered document in favour of her daughter in the shape of transfer deed. However, possession of the licensed premises was handed over on 17.7.2001 to the appellant, the amount of compensation from 1984 till 2001 at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month was not paid.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The flat in question was transferred in the name of respondent no. 1 on 1.10.1987. Thereafter, the different premises Flat No. F-201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai occupied by the respondent no. 1 as licensee was ordered to be vacated by the competent authority on 6.12.2000. Though the possession had been handed over on 17.7.2001 after rejection of the appeal by the High Court and filing of the SLP in this Court, it is clear that in order to defeat the execution order for payment of compensation, an unregistered agreement has been entered into on 26.6.2001 between mother and the daughter on the basis of so-called MOU dated 11.6.1995, which indicates that respondent no. 2 was unmarried at the relevant time. It was mentioned in Clause 3 of the MOU that the purchaser i.e. respondent no. 2 had agreed to look after and maintain the vendor and her family even after her marriage and she ceased to stay in the flat with the vendor. A sum of Rs.1,14,000/- is purported to have to been received from unmarried daughter by respondent no. 1. This MOU had not been set up by respondent no. 1 while she made the statement before the competent authority in the pending eviction proceedings in 2000. Respondent no. 1 had stated that in the year 2000 the flat in question was in the name of herself and her daughter in joint names. She has not stated that any such MOU had been entered into between mother and daughter and once the order for eviction and compensation had attained finality, it is apparent that in order to frustrate the order for payment of compensation, the deed dated 26.6.2001 had been set up which is not a registered document. Though it was mentioned in the document that the stamp and registration charges shall be paid by the transferee, it was not the document executed by the Co-operative Society. This Court had issued a notice in the SLP on 8.5.2001 only on the question of grant of reasonable time for vacating the premises. It is also to be noted that the miscellaneous application was filed under Order 21 Rule 42 CPC by the appellant against respondent no. 1 restraining her from selling/transferring/disposing of the flat in question, so that the order dated 6.12.2000 with respect to compensation passed by the competent authority may be executed. On 17.7.2001 the possession had been handed over to the appellant. Miscellaneous application dated 10.4.2001 was filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 42 CPC for issuance of warrant for recovery of the compensation and arrears of license fee in the sum of Rs.6,48,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and for attachment of flat in question along with injunction upon respondent no. 1 from selling the flat. This notice attained finality as respondent no. 1 failed to submit any reply to the notice. The notice was made absolute by the High Court vide order dated 22.3.2007. The warrant of attachment was issued on 2.2.2009 and the flat in question has been attached. The judgment debtor has failed to indicate that the MOU dated 11.6.1995 and the unregistered agreement dated 26.6.2001 at the time when notice was issued and made absolute and execution was ordered to be prosecuted with. It was only after the notice was made absolute and the flat in question had been attached, respondent no. 2 has taken the chamber summons in question on the basis of which the impugned release order was passed by the High Court. The facts indicate that the MOU and the agreement had been set up by respondent no. 1 in order to delay and frustrate the eviction order and payment of compensation. The order was passed way back on 6.12.2000 by the competent authority, which has attained finality up to this Court. The nature of MOU indicates that even after marriage of daughter, when she ceases to be in possession of flat in question, the mother, judgment-debtor will remain in possession. MOU casts a duty upon respondent no. 2 to look after and maintain the vendor and her family even after her marriage and ceases to stay in the flat in question with the vendor. Such an understanding by the married daughter by itself falsifies the documents and indicates that a dubious transaction had been entered into between respondent nos. 1 and 2 to illegally defeat the order of payment of compensation. Thus it is clear that daughter has been set upon false pretext to obstruct execution of order dated 6.12.2000. As per MOU, the Judgment-debtor herself continues to be in possession. The statement of the judgment-debtor also falsifies MOU and the subsequent unregistered documents cannot be said to be bona fide. It was clearly collusive and in order to defeat the execution proceedings. The mother and daughter had illegally attempted to get the attachment cancelled by setting up false documents in favour of respondent no. 2 on the basis of MOU and the unregistered agreement which had not seen the light of the day for several years.

11. Thus, the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the attachment. The impugned order and the chamber summons are liable to be set aside. The appellant is free to carry out the execution and to realize the amount of compensation from the flat in question as it has rightly been attached in the execution proceedings. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.