SULOCHANA RAVINDRAKUMAR BHANDARI Vs. K RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceeding which initially had only two parties gets an addition of a third party, namely, the society, and the controversy revolves round flat No. 5 located on the 2nd floor in Jayant Mahal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (shortly stated as "the society") situate at Churchgate. The first petitioner is a member owner of the said flat and in that capacity she has been in use and occupation thereof for quite some time and right from the inception. Petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the 1st petitioner, who had in his mind to achieve some better prospects in business by setting up a manufacturing plant at Wardha and, therefore, he was to leave Bombay for quite some time. This obviously injected a thought in the minds of the petitioners that they may well make some arrangements vis-a-vis the flat in question during their absence from the city. A negotiation, therefore, had been effected between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent who is the Administrative Officer of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (shortly stated as "the Company") under which the Company expressed its desire to get the flat on a caretaker basis initially for a period of 3 years with a stipulation for extension of the said period and which came to be accepted by the petitioners.

(2.) This obviously took some time to materialise and translate into action and in between there had been rounds of discussions and ensuing correspondence. When ultimately it was agreed that the flat be given to the 1st respondent-company on caretaker basis under an agreement which was to be executed between the parties, in response to which, in fact, an agreement was reduced to writing and was executed on May 23, 1980. There is, however, a controversy as to what was really agreed upon between the parties vis-a-vis the possession of the flat. The petitioners would take it that inspite of the said agreement possession was not parted, though a spare key of the flat was handed over to the Company Officials for the restricted purpose of making an inventory of the articles therein and that the petitioners continue to be in possession of the flat on the date of the agreement and even thereafter. As against this the Company wanted to have it that on the day of the agreement and under the terms of the agreement the possession of the flat was parted with by the petitioners and since that day the Company is in possession of the flat in question. It was then stipulated between the parties that the Company should give a deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner which was made refundable on the Company giving back vacant possession of the flat on the expiry of the period under agreement and the said deposit was not to carry any interest. It was further contemplated that if the 1st petitioner did not refund the deposit amount after the stipulated period then the Company was entitled to retain possession of the flat and a further clause was inserted in the agreement to the effect that in the event of non-delivery of vacant possession to the petitioners by the company on the expiry of the caretakership period, the Company would purchase the flat at the best ruling market price available which is to be assessed by one of the Government approved valuers. A list of articles, including fixures, was catalogued, though it appears that it was not signed by either of the parties. In pursuance of the agreement the common ground is that the Company had paid the entire amount of rupees four lakhs and add, inclusive of the maintenance charges, to the 1st petitioner by cheque and it was accepted and actually encashed by the 1st petitioner thereafter. Upto this stage both the parties felt that there would be smooth sailing for everyone. However, the situation took an unexpected turn and each party started blaming the other for the creation thereof.

(3.) The 1st petitioner contends that she has been approaching the society for consent and permission to execute and implement the agreement in favour of the company so that the company officials would be inducted in the flat on caretaker basis. It is her case that the society somehow or the other took an unexpected stand and informed the petitioner that inducting a third person even on caretaker basis would amount to parting with the property of the society, which would violate the bye-laws and the rules of the society. We are not very much concerned with the validity of the said stand and contention raised by the society. Equipped with this denial of consent from the society, the petitioner claims to have approached the Company and placed her cards before them, expressing her inability to hand over possession and to implement the agreement on account of an event which was undoubtedly beyond her control. The events thereafter indicate that a further negotiation was in progress between the parties when a further proposal was made that the Company should go in for an outright purchase of the flat so as avoid all these difficulties and complications and it appears that the company was inclined to consider this proposal and that is how the doors were left open on a second occasion for such a new proposal.