KANAIYALAL SHANKARCHAND MODI Vs. PATEL RAJESHKUMAR BACHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the original defendant No.2 of Lavad Suit No.48 of 2016 filed before the Board of Nominees by the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

(2.) The controversy in the suit was with regard to whether the present petitioner could have let out his flat as a hostel for paying guests. With the suit, an application Exh.6 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 wherein perusal of the order of interim relief of the Lavad Court dated 30.10.2017 indicates that the issues were framed by the Board of Nominees namely; (a) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit? (b) Whether the plaintiffs / respondent Nos.1 to 5 had prima facie, a case of balance of convenience?

(3.) On the first issue regarding whether the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had jurisdiction to file the suit, the Board of Nominees Court has prima facie observed that the society had implicitly consented to the action of the petitioner in letting out his flat for paying guest, as the petitioner was being charged maintenance at an enhanced rate. Even on the question of prima facie case and of balance of convenience, the Board of Nominees Court has observed that no case was made out by the plaintiff of the suit respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein. It is also observed that paying guests have been inducted right from the year 2014 and appropriate procedure was followed by the petitioner. In this background of facts, the Board of Nominees Court has, by an order dated 30.10.2017 refused to grant any interim relief.