AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on Board on a praecipe.
On 19th September 2022 we passed an Order in this matter. Among other things, there was a question of giving the Appellant a copy of the revised plans submitted to MCGM and the application made to the MCGM. We also asked that a draft of the proposed Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement (“PAAA”) could be exchanged and even signed but not acted upon until further orders of the Court.
The Appellant has vacated the Flat No.11, 2nd Floor, Express Dairy Building, Forjett Hill, Mumbai - 400 007. However lawful custody of the flat is with the Appellant. The keys are with him. Mr Tamboly tenders a set of photographs that are taken on record and marked ‘X-1’ for identification with today’s date. He says that yesterday, without any notice or warning, the 17th Respondent’s contractor forcibly entered Flat No.11, broke upon the door and then proceeded to damage the flat extensively including breaking the ceiling, walls, window frames, internal doors, etc. This is borne out by the photographs at ‘X-1’.
This is a shocking and unacceptable state of affairs. Nobody had permitted 17th Respondent to do this or to take the law into its own hands. The matter is still pending before this Court. Final orders have not been passed. Mr Doctor on instructions from the 17th Respondent states that there was ‘miscommunication’ between the 17th Respondent and its contractor. We do not even pretend to understand what this is supposed to mean, if anything.
The 17th Respondent and his contractor will immediately restore the flat to its original condition in every single respect, starting now. The status quo ante is to be restored immediately. We are not going to hear any submissions from 17th Respondent on any aspect of the matter until this is done.
In order to ensure that the 17th Respondent, by itself or through its enthusiastic contractor does not cross any lines ever again, we appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to take possession of the flat in question. The Receiver will proceed at once to site. He will take the assistance of necessary police personnel from Tardeo police station. Those authorities will act on production of an authenticated copy of the Order and will deploy a sufficient number of male and female police personnel to the site.
At this stage Mr Doctor on instructions makes a statement that the 17th Respondent will ‘hand over possession’ of Flat No. 11. That actually makes matters worse, because nobody authorised the 17th Respondents to take possession in the first place. We do not care how the Receiver gets possession but the Receiver will forcibly take possession of this flat. He will have the necessary agency agreement executed with the Appellant. The Appellant is to be an Agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty or security. The Court Receiver will permit the 17th Respondents’ Contractor to do whatever is necessary to restore the flat to its original condition.
In the meantime, as regard the PAAA, if the Appellant has not signed it, he is not to sign it now until further orders of the Court. However the 17th Respondent must comply with every single direction issued to it in our Order of 19th September 2022.
We expect the work of the contractor to be completed at the very latest by 12 noon on 1st October 2022.
The matter will be listed first on Board on Monday 3rd October 2022.