IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT DINDOSHI

BORIVALI DIVISION, GOREGAON

L.C. SUIT NO.2228 0F 2010.

Harkisandas Damodar Sheth )

Of Mumbai, Indian Indian Inhabitant )
Aged 64 years, Occ:Retired )
Residing at Block No.7, 3.a Floor, )
Sethi Bhavan, Plot No.221,Road )
No. l lJawahar Nagar, Goregaon(W) )
Mumbai-4O0 062. )

i(a) Mrs.Shilpa Harkishandas Sheth, )

Wd/o late Shri
Age : 66 years, )
Harkishandas Sheth, Occupation: )
Housewife, Hindu Indian Inhabitant )
Presently residing at 221 17, )
Rajputana Residenry, (formerly )
known as Sethi Bhavan, Road No.11)
JawaharNagar,Goregaon(West), )
Mumbai-400 062. )

1(b)Dr.AshwiniHarkishandasSeth )
Age: Years, Occupation: )
Frofession, having address at )
Block No.7, 3.a Floor, Rajputana )
Residency (Formerly known as )
Sethi Bhavan),Plot No.221, )
Road Nos. 11 and 14, Jawahar Nagar)
Goregaon(West), Mumbai-4OO 062. )

1(c)Mrs.Nandita Julka
Age: 34 years, Occupation: Service
Hindu Indian Inhabitant, presently
Having address at, Sadbhavna
CHS Ltd; Flat No. 1, Sector 13, RT
a

Go
YT.
 Opp:Govandi Post Office, )

Govandi(West), Mumbai )

1(d)Mrs.Kamini Seth Shinivasan )

Age:36 years, Occupation:Service )
Presently having address at )
S-3/38, Vishramsthal CHS Ltd, )
Bangur Nagar, Link Road, )
Goregaon(West) Mumbai-40O 090. )

1(e)Mrs. Vrandita T. Modi )

Age:34 years,Occupation: )

Having address at B1l13, )

Aaditya Beeji Park, Baner, )
Balwadi Road, Near Bhartiya )

Vidyapeth, Baner-41 1045. ) ... Plaintiffs

Versus
1. MUNTCIPAL CORPORATION OF )
GREATER MUMBAI, a Body )
Corporate, constituted )
Under B.M.C. Act, 1888, having )
Its Main Office at Mahapalika )
Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )
Mumbai-4O0 001. )

2. MR. KIRTIJ. KANTHER

Residing at Flat No.1, Gr.Floor,
Sethi Bhavan, Plot No.221,
Road No. 1 lJawahar Nagar,
Goregaon(W) Mumbai-400 062.

2a. Mrs. Saroj Kirti Kanther )

Age: 56 yrs, Occ:Business )

Having their business at Shop )

No.l,Samarth Complex, )
Opp.BMC Vegetable Market, )

Pr,\
n

ot
 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.1, )
Goregaon(W), Mumbai-40O 104. )

2b. Mr.Pravesh Kirti Kanther )

Age: 36 yrs, Occ: Business )
Having their business at Shop )
No.1, Samarth Complex, )
Opp.BMC Vegetable Market, )
Jawahar Nagar, Road No.l, )
Goregaon(W), Mumbai-4o0 104. )

2c. Mr.Samarth Kirti Kanther )

Age: 18 yrs, Occ:Student )
Having their business at Shop )
No. 1, Samarth Complex, )
Opp.BMC Vegetable Market, )
Jawahar Nagar, Road No. 1, )
Goregaon(W), Mumbai-4o0 104. )

3. Slum Rehabilitation Authority )

Administrative Building )
Anant Kanekar Marg, D'Block )
Naupada, Bandra(East), )
Mumbai-400 051. ).. Defendants.

ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

No.2a to 2c:

1. The defendants hereby adopts the original written

statement liled by the deceased defendant and crave leave to
refer to rely each and every statement pleaded therein and hence
defendant herein reply to the amended portion of the plaint
herein.

P a\
1952
R3gd.'
a a

o t'
2{al With reference to para No.2a of the amended plaint and in
reply thereto these defendants says that the contents of the para
is the description of defendant No.3, therefore sarne requires no
specific reply as same is un-wamanted.

2(b) With reference to Para No.2b of the amended plaint and in

reply thereto it is admitted fact that 2a to 2c are the legal heirs
and representative of the deceased defendant No.2 who was the
landlord and had acquires the right, title and interest in respect
of the suit building from one Mr.Pishorilal Sethi & Veeravali Sethi
and after demise of defendant No.2 the defendant No.2a to 2c
acquired the right, title and interest of the suit property as and
by way of the heirs of the deceased defendant No.2. It is further
specifically and vehemently denied that the defendant No.2a to
2c being the landlord and developer have manage to demolish the
suit building in collusion of defendant No.1 and further deny that
they have also manage to issue the notice dt.4.1..2019 u/sec.354
of MMC Act and thereby the suit building was demolished by the
BMC by defendant No.1 as building was declared dilapidated and
dangerous vide C-l Category(wrongly numbered as defendant
No.4) and further deny that since then they have neither
proceeded to develop the building as the fact remains that more
than 50 o/o have consented for development and hence the
defendant No.3 have granted permission to develop the said plot
of land and as of now building has come up to plinth level which
the admitted fact remains that the plaintiff herein is the non-
cooperative member and have denied to executed the permanent

1A

P, .l
R.gd.' 1952
 pressurized the
alternate accommodation and have always
for area
original defendant to execute the agreement
provision for
admeasuring 900sq'fts carpet and also there is no
providing any compensation to the tenants in
case of demolition
ofbuildingwhichisdeclaredC-lCategoryand/oranyother
to the extent of
tenanted building, therefore the grant of relief
proceeding with the
the extent of restraining the defendants from
cannot be granted
construction of the building on suit property
seeking such
as the plaintiff is making such statement and
reliefs with malalide intention to execute the agreement of
permanent alternate accommodation with her
for bigger area
presently to continue
and i.e. the sole intention of the plaintiffs
as party defendant
the present suit by joining the defendant No'3
Maharashtra Slum
though the fact remains that section 42 of
Act 1971 Bars
area (Improvement clearance and redevelopment)
the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court to
try and entertain the
present suit in such form'

plaint and in
3. With reference to para No'3 of the amended
plaintiff Mr'Harshad
reply thereto It is true to say that prior to
Block No'7 on the 3'd
Kumar Kantilal Mewada was occupying the
Nos'11 and 14' Jawahar
floor in Sethi Bhavan, Plot No'221' Road
Nagar, Goregaon(W), Mumbai-4OO 062 as a
tenant. These
defendants are not aware and hence do
not admit that
Mr.HarshadKumarKantilalMevadaunderagreementdated25ft
Kumar
June 2001 executed between the said Mr'Harshad
premises in
Kantilal Mevada surrendered the said tenanted
of the suit
favour of the plaintiff vacant and peaceful possession

j-

.P MAROO )
a MAH inrsx'rne
Regd.' t952
20
OF
premises i.e. Block/Flat No.7,3.afloor in Sethi Bhavan, plot
No.221, Road Nos.14, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon(W), Mumbai-4OO
062.

4. These defendants specifically and vehemently deny and do

not admit the contents of documents as registration of document
does not validate and/or legalise the contents as the fact remains
that neither the original plaintiff nor the plaintiff were in
possession of Block/Flat No.7, 3.a floor admeasuring of 550 sq.ft
carpet area and open terrace of 375 sq.ft ca-rpet a-rea
approximately having wooden main door, one hall, two bedrooms,
(wrongly mentioned as one bedroom), kitchen and W.C.
Whatever has been stated in agreement regarding area in
occupation of erstwhile tenant andlor the original plaintiff or
present plaintiff is false and bogus and same cannot be looked
into as the fact remains that survey carried out by BMC declared
that area of Block No.7 is 325.sq.ft only

5. With reference to para No. 5& 6 of amended plaint in reply

thereto the contents are true to the extent of paying rent and
utility charges which she was duty bound to pay and hence the
payment of such charges, does not give the right to the plaintiff
to demand the additional area as the plaintiff is presenfly
demanding.

6(a) With reference to paraNo.6a of the amended plaint and in

reply thereto these defendant deny the entire contents of the para
in toto as the contents of the para under reply is vague and

AR t

ov I. o (
hence same cannot be replied as amendment itself is frivolous
and baseless.

Division bench of Hon,ble Bombay High Court in the matter of

G.M. H eieh ts LLP vs. MuniciDal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. MANU/ MH/1333/ 20.23.held that, the
tenant of tenanted caarrot dictate his teras for re-
development

It is ruled as under;

It mau be obserued that respondent no.3, in hi.s

'378.
capacitg as a tenant, lws limited ights. Respond.ent
No.3, within the ambit of such rights, cannot dictate
the petitioner-otaner, os to the nqhre of
redeuelopment. If such contention, a.s urged. on belntf
of th.e respondent no.3, is accepted, it would. amount
to recognizing rights tahich are certainlg not
confened bg laut on the tenants. Reagnizing stch
rights would in fact take auag and/or obliterate ttrc
legal righls of the ou)ners of propertg to underlake
redeuelopment in a manner cls maA be permissible in
law, including under tlrc DCPR 2034.

79. Thus, tenants cannot take q. position to foist,

dominate and/or dictate to the otuner the nafire and
the course of redeuelopment tle owner d"esires to

a
 haue. The rights of the owners of the propertg to
undertake redeuelopment of tte mqnner and. tgpe
th.eg intend, cannot be taken awag bg th.e tenants,
minoitg or majoitg. The onlg righfs t?w tenants
haue, utould be to be prouid.ed. an alternate
accommodqtion of an eqtiualent area ocanpied bg
them before ttrc building was demolished.,,

6(b) With reference to para No.6b of the amended plaint and in

reply thereto , these defendant specifically and vehemently deny
the entire contents of the para in toto and call upon the plaintiffs
to the strict proof thereof as the contents thereof of the para
under reply it is not correct to say that the defendant No.3 trying
to deprive the rights of
original plaintiff instead of getting plan of
the BMC for re-development of the suit building and has
approached SRA and accordingly SRA granted permission for
construction of building on the said plot of rand but this cannot
be the ground tojoint SRA as party defendant in present suit.

6(c) With reference to para No.6c of the amended piaint and in

reply thereto these defendants deny the entire contents of the
para in toto and call upon the plaintiffs to the strict proof thereof.

6(d) with reference to para No.6d of the amended praint and in

reply thereto these defendant says that this
Hon,ble court has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain
the present suit in the form as
it is framed and liled as Sec.42 of the Maharashtra
Slum area
(Improvement clearance and redevelopment)
Act 1971 specifically

a
L
o a
z
z .q
a
GO
bars the Civil Court to try and entertain in suit pertaining to the
property which are involved under the SRA as all the requisite
permission for construction of building are issued by SRA
U/Sec.33(11) of DCPR 2034 on the said ptot of land.

7. These defendants states that no such document with

reference letter Ref.No.ES/603/A 1958-59 dated 27tr, October
1958 is in knowledge of the defendant pursuant to which
building was constructed and even otherwise also this plaintiff
cannot have any concern with original permission for
construction as the fact remains that third floor premises was
constructed pursuant to FSI granted by BMC in lieu of portion
of building aJfected by road widening thereafter the original
landlord Mrs.Veerawali Pishorilal Sethi letout the various rooms
on the terms and conditions of the Tenancy agreements to her
tenants including the landlord is in use, occupation and
possession of the one of the room. The Plaintiff states that the
portion of the land was let out by the originat landlady for use of
the garages and shops let out to Pan Beedi Shop i.e. for
commercial use. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "D"
&"E" are copies of the said letter dated 23.a December 1958 and a
copy of the Photograph of the building.

8. With reference to para No. 8& 9 of amended plaint in reply

thereto at the further outset it is correct to say that in the year
1983 Road No.ll at Jawahar Nagar was widened by the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay due to which the
benefit of the set back area was awarded to the original landlady

a-

o
o z
c.
o
o
GON
1
 who has utilized FSI and constructed flats on the 3.afloor i.e. on
portion of the terrace and ret out the same to the predecessors
of the plaintiff and presently the same is occupied by the plaintiff
and building was assessed by BMC for taxes.

9. With reference to para-No. 10 of amended plaint in reply

thereto it is true to say that the original landlady smt.veerawali
Pishorilal sethi has sold, transferred and assigned an her right,
title and interest of the said suit premises under an Indenture of
Conveyance dated 19t1, October 2OOZ to Shri.Kirti J.Kanthar
which was todged for registration with the Sub-Registrar of
Assurances at Bandra on 24tt October 2007 under Serial
No.7773/4 of 2OO7 who in turn vide his letter dated 4th November
2007 has inter alia informed the praintiff that he is the present
owner and landlord of the Sethi Bhuvan.

10. With reference to para-No. 11of amended plaint in reply

thereto At the further outset it is correct to say that after the
Landlady smt.Veerawali pishorilal sethi and Another selling the
said property to Shri. Kirti J.Kanther is one of the tenant residing
on the ground floor of the suit building but absolutely false to
say that he started harassing and depriving the basic amenities
provided to the plaintiff along with various other tenants in the
building and these defendant car upon the plaintiff to the strict
proof thereof. The plaintiff states that the present Landlord
Mr.Kirti J.Kanther has called upon the plaintiff vide his various
letters asking the Plaintiff to take inspection of the original
documents and called upon the plaintiff to attend tl.e office of the

,i V1

da

a
 Advocates for shri.Kirti Kanther at their Suburban office
at 304,
3"d floor, Mangal Bhavan Building, Corner of p.D. Hinduja
Marg
& 14th Road, Khar(West), Mumbai. The plaintiff craves leave to
refer to and rely upon the letter dated 24*,April 20Og addressed
by the Advocate for the landlord Mr.Kirti J.Kanther.

11. With reference to pa-ra No. 12of amended plaint in reply

thereto these defendants deny the entire contents of para in toto
and call upon the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof that the
present randl0rd is in the habit of harassing the plaintiff
by
lodging complaint with various authorities. The plaintiff states
that the letters issued the present landlords were also replied by
the Plaintiff through their Advocate's retter dated 2.a February
2010. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit ,,G" is a copy of the
said reply.

13. With reference to para No.,13, t4, t4(al to t4(i), t5 & 16(a) to
16(w) are the subject matter of record and contents thereof are
required to read and interpreted at the relevant time.
77(al With reference to para-No.l7a, l7b, t7c of the
amended plaint and in reply thereto these defendants state
that the statement and averment as pleaded in the para under
reply are the subject matter of record and needs no specific
relief as the contents of the para under reply can be verified
from the records itself.

l7(dl With reference to para No.17d of the amended plaint

and in reply thereto these defendants are not aware and hence

a v
\ a
0r o
o-
 deny that the original plaintiff through is one of the tenant
made an application to Asst. Municipal Commission-Engineer
under the RTI calling upon them to furnish the sanction plan
and further more these defendants are not aware of any such
sanction plan bearing No.ES/603/A/ 195g_S9 dated 27tt,
October, 1958 and hence there is no question of furnishing
copy of the said alleged sanction plan as according to these
defendants from no such plan submitted by the originat owner
for construction of the building in the year 195g_1959 and
hence the BMC have no record of any such alleged plan as
referred by the plaintiffs in the alteged RTI Application.

17(d) With reference to paraNo.17(e) and l7(f) of the amended

plaint and in reply thereto these defendants specifically and
vehemently deny the contents of the para and catl upon the
plaintiff to the strict proof thereof are based on presumption
and there is no documents to that effect.

17(g) With reference to para No.17(g) of the amended plaint and

in reply thereto these defendants specifically states that they
are not aware of any proceedings/appeal pending before any
authority as mentioned in the para under reply.

17(h) With reference to para No.17(h) of the amended plaint

and in reply thereto these defendants specifically states that
they are not aware of any application as may have been filed by
the plaintiff but the fact remains that these defendants are not
the party and hence cannot reply.
a vto

.\
d
o
c2.
a
 17(l With reference to para No.l7(i)of the amended plaint
and in reply thereto these defendants states that as the old
building has already been demolished as per declare on
dilapidated under C-1 Category demolished by BMC, therefore,
there is no question of grant of any Injunction as prayed for by
the plaintiff in the para under reply.

18. With reference to para No.lg, D e 20 of the amended

plaint and in reply thereto these defendants deny that the
entire contents of the para under reply and call upon the
plaintiff to the strict proof thereof it is further to state that the
alleged allegation of harassing the plaintiff in irrelevant and
have no out of evidence establish to such false allegation.

19. With reference to para No.21 & 23 of the amended

plaint and in reply thereto these defendants specifically and
vehemently deny that the plaintiff are entitled for any reliefs
against these defendants as the fact remains that the entire
development work has already commenced as the permission
granted by the SRA and no such reliefs as prayed for by
plaintiff can be granted in any circumstances.

a v
\ & s

a
 \/ERIFICATION

I MR.PRAVESH KIRTI I(ANTHER, age about 36 years

the Defendant No.2b abovenamed, residing at Flat No.1,
Ground Floor, Sethi Bhavan, plot No.22l, Road No.11,
Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon(W), Mumbai-4O} 062, do hereby
state on solemn affirmation that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in the foregoing paras of this Written statement
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and I believe
the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai L

6
On this 3t day of October 2024
)

Defendant No.2b
Identified & Explained by me, Before me,

t\48
BE FO
Advocate for Defendan to 2c.
A
o t
e P T\.4A Roo
N OTARY
GOVT OF IN DIA
a /s opp
Tower
B-r202, A nmo
atel P
P
PumP
{W)
sv Road. G oregaon

$
400 104
Mumbai'
Nota rY
! Retister
i Sr. l',1o.
@967 \.
I Date 1 c (}J

Y a-
) oo :r-.
q a
IAL NOTAHIAL OTABI a
.q a
a
L ) ,l t.q il
a
Gt) a U
s 1
o
 IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURTAT
DINDOSHI BORIVAII DTVISION, GOREGAON

L.C. SUrT NO.2228 0F 2010.

Mr. Harkishandas D. Shettr

Plaintitr.
v/s.

Mun.Corpn of Gr.Bombay
...Defendants

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF
THE DEFEDNANT NO to 2c.

nur"a,frlr:ftuy of October 2024.

.4

MR. RAJESH V. CHATURVEDI

Advocate for Defendant No.2b,
C-13, Krishna Koyana Bldg,
Samarth Complex,
Jawahar Nagar Road No.1,
Goregaon (W),Mumbai-4OO 062.