IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

SUIT NO.1373 OF 2017

Dr.Gunapal Bhoja Shetty )

Aged 64 years, Flat No.101, Sun Mill )

Co-operative Housing Society Limited, )

Plot No.83, Sector – 29, Vashi, )

Navi Mumbai – 400 703. )..Plaintiff

Versus

1. Sukumar Bhoja Shetty )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, aged )

about 60 years, occupation : Business )

Residing at Flat No.7, Building No.34, )

Sapan Building, Mew Ashanagar Co-op. )

Housing Society Ltd., Pestom Sagar, )

Road, No.3, Chembur, Mumbai-400089, )

2, Smt.Shashirekha A. Shetty )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant aged about )

58 years, Housewife, residing at Odesy-I )

Flat No.1801, 18th floor, Hiranandani )

Garden, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076. )

3. Smt. Jayanti R. Shetty )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant aged about )

56 years, Occ. Housewife, residing at ‘A’ )

 2

Wing Flat No.22, 4th floor, Evershine )

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. )

Jayprakash Road, Pratap Nagar, )

Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 058. )

4. Smt. Usha G. Shetty )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant aged about )

54 years, Housewife residing at 2, )

Neel Raj, Sidhi Sadabn Colony, )

S.V.P. Road, Near Bhagwathi Hospital )

Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. )

5. New Ashanagar Co-operative )

Housing Society Ltd., a Co-operative )

Housing Society, registered under the )

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, )

and having its Registered Office at )

Building No.34, Sapan Building, )

Asha Nagar, Pestom Sagar, Road No.3, )

Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089. )

6. Champaklal Chhedha )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant aged about ) (Deleted as

60 years, Occpation: Buisness, carrying ) per order

On business at Kailash Plaza, Room No.345 ) dated

3rd Floor, Next to Odeon Cinema, 90 Feet ) 10/06/2021)

Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400075 )

 3

7. Rajendra V. Shah )

Aged about 66 years, Occupation: Business )

Carrying on business at Kailash Plaza, )

Room No.345, 3rd floor, Next to Odeon )

Cinema, Vallabh Baug Lane, Ghatkopar )

(East), Mumbai – 400 077. )

8. A.M. Developers (formerly known as ) (Deleted as per

Value Man Realtors), a Partnership Firm, ) order dated

Carrying on business as Builders & )10.06.2020)

Developers at 12th floor, Krushal )

Commercial Complex, Shoppers Stoop, )

G.M. Road, Chembur (W), Mumbai-400089 )

9. The Municipal Corporation of Greater )

Mumbai, a local body established under the )

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and )

Having its Head Office at Mahapalika Marg, )

Mumbai – 400 001. ) … Defendants

THE PLAINTIFF ABOVENAMED STATES AS

UNDER:-

1. The Plaintiff is residing at the address as mentioned

hereinabove. The Defendant No.1 is the brother of the

Plaintiff and residing at the address as mentioned in the

title herein. The Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the sisters of

 4

the plaintiff and have their respective address as set out

in the cause tide herein. The Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are

the partners of Defendant No.8 and carry on business as

Builder and Developers. The Defendant No.8 are the

present owners of the said building known as Amar

Mahal, Plot Nos.86 and 87 at Sector D, Pestom Sagar,

Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089 bearing C.T.S. No.561,

561/1 to 561/42. The Defendant No.9 is the Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a local body,

established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Act, 1888.

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 are the sons and

the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters of Shri Bhoja

Kanthappa Shetty and Smt. Sampa B. Shetty, both

deceased. The father of the Plaintiff died on or about

17th March 2004. The Mother of the Plaintiff

predeceased his father on or about 24th July, 1999.

3. The Plaintiff states that the father of the Plaintiff

(hereinafter referred to as “the said deceased”) was

carrying on the Restaurant business in the name and

style of Swagath Lunch Home, at Shop No. 7, on

Ground Floor of “A” Wing of the building known as

“Aaradhya One” admeasuring 390 sq. ft equivalent to

 5

36.23 sq. mtrs. Situated at 86 and 87 bearing New CTS

No. 561 A lying and being in Sub Section No. III,

Chembur Sector D, Pestomsagar situate at Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 089” more fully described in Schedule

annexed in Exhibit-A hereto (hereinafter referred to as

“the said premises”). The said two shops are totally

admeasuring about 216 sq.ft. each with built up area, i.e.

totally about 432 sq.ft. built up area and the Room of

about 40 sq.ft. thereby totally admeasuring 474 sq.ft.

built up area, equivalent to 43.70 sq.mt. or thereabout.

Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-B is copy of the

rent receipt in the name of the deceased.

4. The Plaintiff states that the father of the Plaintiff died

intestate on or about 17th March 2004, leaving the

Plaintiff, the |Defendant No.1 to 4 as his only heirs and

legal representatives, under Hindu Succession Act,

under which the parties are governed. The Defendant

No.1 was residing with the parents in the Flat No.7,

Sapna Building, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, at the time of the

death of the father. The Defendant No.1 took physical

control of the said flat, though the legal heirs of the

deceased parents have equal share in the property. The

said Restaurant business was being carried on by the

 6

father, the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 during the

lifetime of their father having equal shares in the said

business.

5. The Plaintiff states that prior to the death, Shri Bhoja K.

Shetty was unwell for about 3 to 4 years due to old age

problem and mentally not sound to take any decision on

his own as he was suffering from Dementia following

Alzeheimer’s decease and was in an unconscious state

for about 10 days prior to his death on 17th March 2004.

6. The Plaintiff states that after the death of the father, the

Defendant No.1 started behaving in rude manner and

started abusing and threatening the Plaintiff of dire

consequences. The wife of the Defendant No.1 also

started attending the said Restaurant business, who also

started abusing and threatening the Plaintiff to finish the

entire family of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 and

his wife were also joined by the father in law of the

Defendant No.1, one Shivanna Shetty, who also started

interfering with the said business and threatening the

Plaintiff of physical assault. The Plaintiff realized and it

was apparent that the Defendant No.1 wanted to

misappropriate all the assets of the father, without

giving any share to the Plaintiff or Defendant Nos.2 to 4.

 7

The Plaintiff by letter dated 11.10.2005 addressed to the

Seni9or Inspector of Police, Tilak Nagar Police Station,

Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400089, placed on

record the facts stated hereinabove. Hereto annexed and

marked Exhibit-C is copy of the said letter dated

11.10.2005.

7. The Plaintiff states that in view of such constant

harassment and threat by the Defendant No.1 and his

relatives, the Plaintiff was prevented from carrying on

the business of the Restaurant. In or about 19th October

2005, at about 1.30 p.m. Defendant No.1 and his wife

started abusing the Plaintiff and threatened with dire

consequences. The Plaintiff had no option but to call the

police fearing for his life. The Police came to the

Premises and called Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to the

Police Chowky, Pestom Sagar of Tilak Nagar Police

Station. The Police advised to \keep peace and move

the civil court as it was a civil dispute. The Plaintiff

lodged N.C. complaint being N.C. Complaint No.11605

of 2005 on 19th October 2005 at Pestom Sagar Police

Chowky. The Plaintiff tried his best to resolve the issue

with Defendant No.1 amicably through some relatives

 8

and friends keeping in view the relation between the

parties.

8. The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff was shocked and

surprised to find that various licenses required for

running Restaurant business, i.e. License for Eating

House, Shops and Establishment Certificate, Food

Licence, etc. issued by the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai, which were in the name of the

deceased, the Defendant No.1 had scrumptiously and

without the knowledge and/or consent of the Plaintiff

transferred to his name, by making false, dishonest

statement submitted to Defendant No.9 that the

Defendant No.1 was only heir and legal representative

of the deceased. It also appears that the Defendant No.1

fabricated t5he Rent receipt in the name of the

Defendant No.1, though the tenancy in respect of the

said Restaurant in respect of the said two shops Nos.10

and 11 and Room No.68 always and still continues in

the name of the deceased. Immediately thereupon the

Plaintiff addressed a letter dated 19th October 2005 to

the Asst. Municipal Commissioner, M-West Ward,

regarding issuance of license in the name of Defendant

No.1 on false statements. Hereto annexed and marked

 9

Exhibit-D is copy of the said letter dated 19 th October

2005 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Asst. Municipal

Commissioner, M-West Ward, Municipal Corporation

of Greater Mumbai, Chembur Mumbai.

9. The Plaintiff states that simultaneously the Plaintiff also

addressed let6ter dated 20.10.2005 to the Inspector of

Police, Tilak Nagar Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai-

400089, informing the aforesaid criminal committed by

the Defendant No.1 and asking him to take appropriate

action in the matter. Hereto annexed and marked

Exhibit-E is copy of the said letter dated 20.10.2005

from the Plaintiff to the Inspector of Police, Tilak Nagar

Police Station, Chembur,Mumbai-400089.

10. The Plaintiff states that the said Restaurant business also

had a bar license issued under the Maharashtra State

Excise. The Plaintiff by his letter dated 25.10.2005

addressed to the Superintendent of Maharashtra State

Excise, Mumbai, recorded the correct facts and

requested them not to change the liquor license of the

said Restaurant and Bar business in the name of the

Defendant No.1. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-F

is copy of the said letter dated 25.10.2005.

 10

11. The Plaintiff thereafter through his advocates addressed

another letter dated 5th November 2005, to then

Landlord of the said property, where the said Restaurant

business is situated and requested them not to transfer

the tenancy rights in the name of Defendant No.1.

Hereto and marked Exhibit-G is copy of the said let6ter

dated 5th November, 2005.

12. The Plaintiff states that, by a Deed of Conveyance dated

25th August 2006 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar,

at Bandra, under Serial No.5767 of 2006, the building

was conveyed in the name of the new Owner and

tenancy in respect of the said two Shops and the Room

continued to be in the name of deceased. A letter dated

21st May 2006 was addressed to the Defendant No.6 and

Progressive Developers request5ing them not to change

the name, in respect of the tenancy of the said two Shops

and Room No.68 in the name of the Defendant No.1

without the consent of the Plaintiff. Hereto annexed and

marked Exhibit-H is copy of the said Deed of

Conveyance dated 25th August 2006 and Exhibit-I is

copy of the said letter dated 21st May 2006.

13. The Plaintiff states that as there was no response from

the Defendant No.6 and the said Progressive Developers

 11

to his earlier letter, the Plaintiff addressed another letter

through his advocate, dated 7th December 2005

requesting Defendant No.6 not to settle with the

Defendant No.1 in respect of the said Shops Nos.10 &

11 and Room No.68, as the said Defendant No.1 was not

entitled for transfer of the rights in the said Shops and

the said Room No.68 alone. Hereto annexed and marked

Exhibit-J is copy of the said letter dated 7 th December,

2005.

14. The Plaintiff states that, a suit was filed by the Plaintiff

against the Defendant No.1 and others, i.e. the

Defendants hereinabove for partition, possession of

Joint property along with relief of injunction to restrain

Defendant No.1 from creating third party interest in the

suit property i.e. (i) Flat No.7, in Sapna Building,

Ghatkopar, Mumbai,(ii) Restaurant and Bar business in

the name and style of Swagat Lunch Home, and(iii)

Tenancy rights in Shop No.10 & 11, and Room No.68,

in the building known as Amar Mahal, Mumbai,

wherefrom the said business of Restaurant was jointly

carried by the deceased, the Plaintiff and Defendant

No.1. The suit was finally disposed by order dated

67.5.2017. As per the order, it was declared that the

 12

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 4 have equal shares in

the suit property i.e. Flat No.7,Building No.34, Sapan

Building, New Ashanagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,

Pestom Sagar, Road No.3, Chembur, Mumbai-400089,

barring leasehold property i.e. Shop No.10 & 11 and

Room No.68 housed in Amar Mahal Building. It is

submitted that, as per the order, the Defendant No.1 is

restrained from creating any third party interest in the

immovable property bearing leasehold property. The

Defendant No.1 was further directed to give accounts of

Restaurant business from October 2005 till its closure of

the said business, to the Plaintiff. However, till date

Defendant No.1 has not provided the accounts to

Plaintiff as per the said order dated 6.5.2017. Hence the

present suit filed for the leasehold immovable property

i.e. Shop No.10 & 11, and Room No.68, in the old

building Amar Mahal, and now in the newly constructed

building Amar Mahal.

15. The Plaintiff states that, during the pendency of the suit,

the Defendant No.1 had filed a Notice of Motion

No.1029/2015 for a request and direction to Defendant

No.8 to pay an amount in lieu of providing temporary

accommodation and in lieu of Shop No.10 & 11 and

 13

Room No.68 situated on the ground floor in the building

known as Amar Mahal, Plot No.86 & 87, Rustom Sagar,

Chembur, Mumbai-400089 as per the terms and

conditions agreement between Defendant No.1 and 8.

The Hon’ble Court by order dated 29.8.2015 rejected the

said application. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-K

is copy of the said order.

16. The Plaintiff states that, the Defendant No.1 soon after

the death of the father, changed the name in various

documents, in which father’s name was mentioned. One

such document is the Rent receipt which was earlier in

the name of the deceased and thereafter Defendant No.1

managed to substitute his name in the place of the

deceased. The Defendant No.1 by letter dated 30.6.2005,

addressed to the Medical Officer, H-Ward, Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai, for transfer of

Municipal Health License in the name of legal heirs. In

the said letter dated 30.6.2005, Defendant No.1 has

stated that, Defendant No.1, son of Bhoja K. Shetty,

who is the holder of the Municipal Health License and

Defendant No.1 is the only legal heir of the Bhoja K.

Shetty, the deceased. Hereto annexed and marked

 14

Exhibit-L is copy of the said letter dated 30.6.2005

along with other documents.

17. The Plaintiff states that, the transfer of licenses in the

name of Defendant No.1 by Defendant No.9 is illegal as

the same has been obtained on false representation made

by Defendant No.1, Defendant No.9 is formal party. As

there is urgency in the matter, the issuance of notice be

dispensed with as provided u/s.527 of the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act 1888, and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the said notice be waived.

18. The Plaintiff states that, it is contended by Defendant

No.1 that prior to the death of Shri Bhoja K. Shetty had

executed a Will wherein the tenanted property is given

to Defendant No.1. In the Suit No.105256/2007 filed by

the Plaintiff in City Civil Court, Mumbai, against the

Defendants, Dr.Subhash R. Oroskar was examined

before the Hon’ble Court wherein the Doctor has stated

that Late Shri Bhoja K.Shetty had hypertension,

diabetes, loss of memory and the loss of memory was

due to Alzheimer’s disease and also possible dementia

due to Parkinson’s diseas. As mentioned hereinabove,

the deceased was not keeping well for the last few years
 15

before his demise. The Defendant No.1 has forged the

Will to make it appear that the alleged Will is prepared

by Late Shri Bhoja K.Shetty. Hereto annexed and

marked Exhibit-M is copy of the evidence given by

Dr.Subhash R. Oroskar.

19. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant No.1 has now

filed Testamentary Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay, for getting the Will probated. The said

petition is pending. The Plaintiff by letter dated

13.7.2017, called upon A M Developers (formerly

known as Value Man Realtors), the Defendant No.8, not

to entertain any request of Defendant No.1. The

Defendant No.8 by letter dated 19.7.2017, has replied

that they have submitted to the order dated 17.4.2015,

passed by the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Suit

No.105256/2007 and expressed willingness to deposit

compensation payable to Defendant No.1 in the Hon’ble

Court pending determination of rights of parties inter se.

It is further stated that, the Defendant No.8 is not served

with any restrained orders from any court preventing

them from complying with their obligations under the

Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement

executed in favour of Defendant No.1, and therefore,

 16

they would continue to honour their obligations and pay

the monthly compensation to Defendant No.1. Hereto

annexed and marked Exhibit-N and Exhibit-O are copies

of the said letters dated 13.7.2017 and 19.7.2017.

20. The Plaintiff states that the old building Amar Mahal

has been demolished and new building has been

constructed on the said plot and is ready for possession.

The Shop No.10 & 11 and the said Room No.68 in the

newly constructed building may be handed over any

time in view of the completion of the building to the

respective tenants/owners. Defendant No.1 has executed

the alternate permanent agreement with Defendant No.8

without the consent of the legal heirs and in violation of

the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. As per the

said order, the Hon’ble Court had directed the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.8 not to create any

third party right in the said tenanted premises i.e. Shop

No.10 & 11 and Room No.68 in the old building.

Presently, it is not clear what numbers have been

allotted to the earlier shops and therefore it is just and

necessary that Defendant no.8 be restrained by an order

of this Hon’ble Court from handing over possession to

Defendant No.1.
 17

21. The Plaintiff states and submits that this Hon’ble Court

be pleased to declare that the Plaintiff is entitled to 20%

share and that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have 20% share

and that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have 20% each share,

in the tenancy rights in property of the deceased father,

Shri Bhoja Kanthappa Shety, i.e. Shop No.10 and 11,

and Room No.68, Amar Mahal Building, Ghatkopr

Mahal Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400089 (i.e. equivalent

area of the newly constructed building “Amar Mahal”).

Therefore the Present suit has been filed under section

33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

22. The Plaintiff states that, in the facts and circumstances,

it is also necessary and in the interest of justice that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendant No.1

by an order and perpetual/temporary injunction and/or

order of this Hon’blle court from parting with

possession, and/or selling and/or surrendering and/or

from dealing with or disposing off or create any third

party interest or otherwise or deal with the said

immovable properties i.e. Shop Nos.10 and 11 and

Room No.68 in the Building known as Amar Mahal,

Ghatkopar Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400089 (i.e.

 18

equivalent area of the newly constructed building “Amar

Mahal”) in any manner whatsoever.

23. The Plaintiff states and submits that the Plaintiff is also

entitled to an order and/or permanent/ temporary

injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.6 to 8 from

handing over possession of the immovable property i.e.

Shop Nos.10 and 11 and Room No.68 in the Building

known as Amar Mahal, Ghatkopar Mahal Road,

Chembur, Mumbai–400089, and/or changing the

tenancy and/or transferring the tenancy in respect of

Shop No.10, 11 and the said Room No.68 in the said

building Amar Mahal (i.e. equivalent area of the newly

constructed building “Amar Mahal”) in the name of

Defendant No.1 or creating any third party right in the

said premises.

24. The Plaintiff states and submits that the Plaintiff is also

entitled to a Declaration that the purported transfer of

the various licenses in respect of the said Restaurant and

Bar business in the name of Defendant No.1 alone, by

Defendant No.9, is null and void, bad in law and has no

effect in law.
 19

25. The Plaintiff states and submits that pending the hearing

and final disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court,

Mumbai or some other fit and proper person as Receiver

for the aforesaid immovable property i.e. Shop Nos.10

and 11 and Room No.68 in the Building known as Amar

Mahal, Ghatkopar Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai-

400089, under Order 40 of the Code of Civil procedure

and Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 be jointly or third

party be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver to

carry on the business of Restaurant in said Shop Nos.10

and 11 and the Room No.68 (i.e. equivalent area of the

newly constructed building “Amar Mahal”).

26. The Plaintiff states that pending the hearing and final

disposal of the suit, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass

permanent order of injunction restraining the Defendant

No.1, his agents, servants, and representatives from

alienating, encumbering and/or creating any third party

right in respect of the suit premises as fully described

hereinabove.

27. The Plaintiff states that pending the hearing and final

disposal of the suit, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass

permanent order of injunction restraining the Defendant

 20

No.8, its agents, servants, and representatives from

alienating, encumbering and/or creating any third party

right in respect of the suit premises as fully described

hereinabove.

28. The Plaintiff states and submits that the equity and the

balance of convenience are in favour of the Plaintiff, if

the aforesaid reliefs are not granted, the Defendant No.1

may deal with or purport to deal with the said suit

premises and also create third party interests and may

act in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the

Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 which cannot be

compensated in terms of money. The Defendant No.1

has been approaching the Defendant No.8 for

surrendering the said Shop No.10 & 11,and the said

Room No.68 in the newly constructed building Amar

Mahal.

29. The Plaintiff states that unless the aforesaid reliefs are

granted, grave hardships, harm and irreparable injury

will be caused to the Plaintiff, however to loss, harm

and/or prejudice will be caused to the Defendant No.1, if

the reliefs as prayed are not granted in favour of the

Plaintiff.
 21

30. The dispute arose in the year 2005 between the legal

heirs of the deceased i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant

No.1. The suit was filed in the City Civil Court, and the

same was decided on 6.5.2017 in favour of the Plaintiff

and the legal heirs in respect of the Flat as mentioned

hereinabove, barring the leasehold rights in Shop No.10

& 11 and Room No.68 housed in Amar Mahal Building,

Pestom Sagar, Mumbai – 400089 (i.e. equivalent area of

the newly constructed building “Amar Mahal”), and

hence the present suit. There is continuous cause of

action. Hence, not barred by limitation.

30A. The suit premises or any part thereof are not covered

under the provision of Maharashtra State clearance Act.

31. The Defendants are residing/carrying on business in

Mumbai. The said properties are situated in Mumbai.

The entire cause of action has arisen within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court

has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the

present suit.

32. The Plaintiff values the suit for purpose of court

fee and jurisdiction at Rs.2,000/- and the Plaintiff shall

pay maximum court fee as provided. The Plaintiff

 22

values the said two tenanted Shop No.10 & 11 and

the Room No.68 at Amar Mahal Building, Pestom

Sagar, Mumbai-400089 (i.e. equivalent area of the

newly constructed building “Amar Mahal”) the total

rent of which is Rs.390/- per month. For the purpose of

court fees, Rs.400/- paid accordingly.

33. The Plaintiff will rely upon the documents, a list

whereof is annexed hereto.

The Plaintiff therefore prays :-

a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

declare that the Plaintiff is entitled to 20%

share and that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4

have 20% each share, in the tenancy rights

in property of the deceased father, Shri

Bhoja Kanthappa Shetty, i.e. Shop No. 7,

on Ground Floor of “A” Wing of the

building known as “Aaradhya One”

admeasuring 390 sq. ft equivalent to 36.23

sq. mtrs. Situated at 86 and 87 bearing New

CTS No. 561 A lying and being in Sub

Section No. III, Chembur Sector D,

Pestomsagar situate at Chembur, Mumbai –

 23

400 089 (i.e. equivalent area of the newly

constructed building “Amar Mahal”).

b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

order and decree in respect of the

distribution of the shares in the suit

premises i.e. suit property i.e. Shop No. 7,

on Ground Floor of “A” Wing of the

building known as “Aaradhya One”

admeasuring 390 sq. ft equivalent to 36.23

sq. mtrs. Situated at 86 and 87 bearing New

CTS No. 561 A lying and being in Sub

Section No. III, Chembur Sector D,

Pestomsagar situate at Chembur, Mumbai –

400 089 (i.e. equivalent area of the newly

constructed building “Amar Mahal”), by

meets and bounds and by allotting 1/4 th

respective shares in the suit premises,

to the legal heirs of Late Shri Bhoja K.

Shetty.

c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

declare that the transfer of various licenses,

i.e. license for Eating House, Shops and

Establishment Certificate, Food License

 24

and al other relevant licenses for the said

Restaurant and Bar business by the

Defendant No.9 in respect of the said

Restaurant and Bar business carried on at

the said Shop No. 7, on Ground Floor of

“A” Wing of the building known as

“Aaradhya One” admeasuring 390 sq. ft

equivalent to 36.23 sq. mtrs. Situated at 86

and 87 bearing New CTS No. 561 A lying

and being in Sub Section No. III, Chembur

Sector D, Pestomsagar situate at Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 089 (i.e. equivalent area of

the newly constructed building “Amar

Mahal”), is null and void, illegal and has

no effect.

d) that pending the hearing and final disposal

of the suit, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to

pass permanent/temporary order of

injunction restraining Defendant No.1, his

agents, servants, representatives from

alienating, encumbering and/or creating

any third party right in respect of i.e. Shop

No. 7, on Ground Floor of “A” Wing of the

 25

building known as “Aaradhya One”

admeasuring 390 sq. ft equivalent to 36.23

sq. mtrs. Situated at 86 and 87 bearing New

CTS No. 561 A lying and being in Sub

Section No. III, Chembur Sector D,

Pestomsagar situate at Chembur, Mumbai –

400 089 (i.e. equivalent area of the newly

constructed building “Amar Mahal”).

e) that pending the hearing and final disposal

of the suit, Defendant No.6 to 8 be

restrained by an order and permanent

injunction of this Hon’ble court from

accepting, unilateral surrender of tenancy

rights/or creation of any third party rights

in respect of the said Shop No. 7, on

Ground Floor of “A” Wing of the building

known as “Aaradhya One” admeasuring

390 sq. ft equivalent to 36.23 sq. mtrs.

Situated at 86 and 87 bearing New CTS

No. 561 A lying and being in Sub Section

No. III, Chembur Sector D, Pestomsagar

situate at Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089 (i.e.

equivalent area of the newly constructed

 26

building “Amar Mahla”), in any manner

whatsoever from Defendant No.1.

f) that pending the hearing and final disposal

of the suit the Defendant No.1 be restrained

by an appropriate order of temporary

injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in

any manner creating any third party right,

title or interest and/or encumbering or

alienating and also further be restrained

from unilaterally surrendering the tenancy

right in respect of the said Restaurant and

Bar business carried in the name of

style of Swagath Lunch Home conducted

in Shop No.10 and 11, and Room No.68,

Amar Maha Building, Ghatkopar Mahul

Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400089 (i.e.

equivalent area of the newly constructed

building “Amar Mahal”), in any manner

whatsoever.

g) that pending the hearing and final disposal

of the suit, the Defendant No.1 be directed

to give accounts from October 2005, till

date of closure of the business of the said

 27

Restaurant and Bar, Swagath Lunch Home,

at Shop No. 7, on Ground Floor of “A”

Wing of the building known as “Aaradhya

One” admeasuring 390 sq. ft equivalent to

36.23 sq. mtrs. Situated at 86 and 87

bearing New CTS No. 561 A lying and

being in Sub Section No. III, Chembur

Sector D, Pestomsagar situate at Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 089 of the building known

as “Aaradhya One” admeasuring 390 sq. ft

equivalent to 36.23 sq. mtrs. Situated at 86

and 87 bearing New CTS No. 561 A lying

and being in Sub Section No. III, Chembur

Sector D, Pestomsagar situate at Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 089).

h) that pending the final hearing and final

disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to appoint the Court Receiver,

High Court, Mumbai or some other fit and

proper persona as Receiver for the said

premises i.e. Shop No. 7, on Ground Floor

of “A” Wing of the building known as

“Aaradhya One” admeasuring 390 sq. ft

 28

equivalent to 36.23 sq. mtrs. Situated at 86

and 87 bearing New CTS No. 561 A lying

and being in Sub Section No. III, Chembur

Sector D, Pestomsagar situate at Chembur,

Mumbai – 400 089 (i.e. equivalent area of

the newly constructed building “Amar

Mahal”), under Order 40 Rule 1 of the

Code Civil Procedure and give the said

Restaurant and Bar business to the Plaintiff

or Defendant No.1 or any third party for

running the same as agent of the Court

Receiver.

i) for interim and ad-interim orders in terms

of prayers (d) to (h) above.

j) For such other and further reliefs as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

k) that the costs of this suit be provided for.

Dated this day of 2017.

 29

RE-VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Gunapal B. Shetty, aged 65 years, of the Plaintiff

above named, do hereby solemnly declare that what is

stated hereinabove in the foregoing paras are true to my

knowledge, based on records and on information and

belief, and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

on this 6th day of February,2019) Sd/-

PLAINTIFF

M/s.Consulta Juris

Sd/-

Advocate for Plaintiff.

VERIFICATION

I, Dr.Gunapal Bhoja Shetty, Indian Inhabitant, aged

about 64 years, residing at Flat No.101, Sun Villa Co-

operative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.83, Sector-

29, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703, hereby solemnly

declare and state that what is stated in para 1 to 19 of

this plaint is true to my own knowledge and what is

 30

stated in the rest of para 20 to 31 is stated on

information, which I believe to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

dated this day of July,2017. ) Sd/-

PLAINTIFF

For M/s Consultant Juris

Sd/-

Partner

Advocates for the Plaintiff.