Ms Kaushal vs Ms Kanishk

Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd Vs Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd

Case Details

Case Type	R.C.S.
Filing Number	351/2015
Registration Number	3000017/2015
Filing Date	30-07-2015
Registration Date	31-07-2015

First Hearing Date	07th August 2015
Decision Date	20th December 2016
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	5-Civil Judge, Jnr Division;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Decreed;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd, ;

Petitioner Advocate

Shri V K Shrimali;

Respondent Name

Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd;

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

20-12-2016

1 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 RECEIVED ON : 21/03/2017 REGISTERED ON : 21/03/2017 DECIDED ON : 29.06.2017 DURATION : Y M D 00 03 08 IN THE COURT OF JOINT CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), U.T. OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AT SILVASSA. (Presided over by Shri P. R. Rane) REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO. 13/2017 EXH.No.32 Shri. Suresh Shivnathji Purohit Age – 64 years, Occupation – Business R/o. – Building A-11, 1st Floor, Panchayat Market, Silvassa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. …. PLAINTIFF VERSUS Silvassa Municipal Council A Corporate Body elected under the Silvassa Municipal Act, At. Post. Silvassa, D&NH. …. DEFENDANT SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION Shri. J.G. Desai, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff Defendant- EX- PARTE JUDGMENT (Dictated and pronounced on 29-06-2017) The suit is filed for Declaration and Injunction. 2 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 02. Precise facts of the Plaintiff case is as follows :- The Description of Suit property is as follows:- The suit property is situated at Municipal Marketing complex, B-32 and B-33, B building, first floor on land bearing survey No. 153 at Silvassa. (Henceforth referred to as 'suit property'). 03. That, defendant is Municipal Council came in to existence in year 2004. Prior to that there existed Group Grampanchayat. In year 1990 marketing complex was constructed on ground floor and dormitory was constructed on first floor for purpose of lodging and boarding. Two buildings by name A and B was constructed by than Group Grampanchayat. Original tenant Shivlal Kikaram Purohit was granted lease in the said complex for lodging and boarding as per lease agreement in respect of suit property. In year 2013 by request of original tenant Silvassa Municipal Council transferred the suit premises in name of present plaintiff. The plaintiff is paying rent regularly. It is further case of plaintiff that on 15.03.2017 notice No. SMC/ME/Panchayatmarket/2017/395 was issued to plaintiff and one Rameshkumar S. Purohit jointly in respect of suit premises. By the said notice plaintiff was directed to handover possession of suit property within 7 days from the date of notice hence plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for declaration and injunction. 04. The suit summons was issued to defendant which was served on him according to report on summons at Exh.11. Inspite of service of summons defendant failed to appear before the court. Hence order was passed below Exh. 1 on 27.03.2016 and suit proceeded ex-parte against defendant. 05. In view of pleadings and material on record following points arose for my determination. I have recorded my finding on them for the reasons given hereinafter :- 3 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 SR.NO. ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is in possession of suit property ? In the affirmative 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as sought? In the negative 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as sought ? In the negative 4. What order and decree? As per final order 06. In order to prove his case plaintiff examined himself as (P.W.1) at (Exh.14). Plaintiff closed his evidence by filing closing pursis at(Exh. 31). 07. Plaintiff has filed on record following documents :- 1. Copy of notice issued by S.M.C. Silvassa dated 15.03.2017 (Exh.15); 2. Rent receipts of suit property (Exh.16 to 20); 3. Deposit receipt dated 03.09.2013 (Exh.21 to 23); 4. Permission letter of Silvassa Grampanchayat (Exh.24); 5. Letter to Silvassa Grampanchayat by original lessee (Exh.25) 6. Letter of Silvassa Grampanchayat (Exh.26) 7. Original Lease agreement (Exh.27 and 28); 8. Letter of plaintiff by S.M.C. (Exh. 29 and 30) REASONS 08. AS TO ISSUE NO. 1 :- In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as plaintiff witness No.1 at Exh. 14. His evidence affidavit is replica of the plaint. Hence his evidence is not discussed again. In the present suit the suit summons was issued to the defendant. But inspite of service of suit summons as per report of bailiff at 4 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 Exh. 11 the defendant failed to appear before the court. Hence the suit proceeded ex-parte. The evidence of plaintiff has gone unchallenged. 09. Now let us scan the evidence of plaintiff. On perusal of S.M.C. notice, rent receipts, property tax receipt and Professional tax receipts and other documents. It seems that, the suit property at present is in possession of plaintiff. Hence I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative. 10. AS TO ISSUE NO. 2 and 3 :- Plaintiff is challenging S.M.C. notice Exh. 15 and seeking declaration that it is bad in law and void ab-in-tio and therefore it cannot be acted upon. On perusal of the said notice it seems that, S.M.C. is stating that lease tenure is lapsed and therefore they are requesting plaintiff to vacate suit property. Plaintiff has filed original lease agreement at Exh. 27 and 28. It seems in both the lease agreement at clause 8 it is stated that, on every 5 years new agreement is to be executed. But it seems that at present the lease agreement is not renewed and the agreement dated 01.10.2001 five year period has been lapsed on 01.10.2006. So also on perusal of letter Exh. 29 and Exh. 30 it is also clearly mentioned that, agreement has to be renewed after every five years. There is nothing on record produced by plaintiff to show that, the lease agreement is renewed and is in force as on today. In such a situation it cannot be stated that notice Exh. 15 is bad in law and void in-ab-intio. Merely because defendant is accepting the rent it cannot be said that lease agree is in force. Hence plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and injunction as sought. Hence I answer issue No. 2 to 3 in the negative. 11. AS TO ISSUE NO. 4:- In view of my findings given to issue No. 2 and 3 the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and injunction as prayed. Hence I answer issue No. 4 in negative. 5 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 12. AS TO ISSUE NO. 4:- In view of my findings given to issue No.1 to 3 I proceed to pass following order :- O R D E R 1. The suit is dismissed with cost. 2. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Judgment dictated and pronounced in the open Court. Silvassa (P. R. Rane) Date:-29.06.2017. Jt. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. 6 R.C.S. No. 13/2017 Exh. No. 32 CERTIFICATE I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. File judgment/order are same, word to word, as per the original Judgment. Name of the Clerk : Hanumant H. Nimbalkar Court : Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division Date : 29/06/2017 Judgment Signed by the Presiding officer on : 29/06/2017 Judgment uploaded on : 30/06/2017

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd vs Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd is Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd.

The Respondent in case Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd vs Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd is Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd.

The case against Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltdwas filed on 30-07-2015 by Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd.

The status of case Ms Kaushal Logistic Private Ltd against Ms Kanishka Infrastucture Private Ltd is Case Disposed.