GOVINDLAL MOHANLAL MOHOTA Vs. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Bhutada, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kunte, learned counsel, who appears by waiving notice for the Respondents.

(2.) Mr. Kunte, learned counsel for the Respondents, has relied upon the letter dtd. 8/4/2022, which is the part occupancy certificate issued by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) and a copy of the communication dtd. 16/4/2022 sent to M/s. Gangaur Restaurant, Nagpur which is Petitioner here, in order to support his contention that now the Petitioner has no right to continue in the front margin area in terms of the Compromise Pursis entered into between the parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. These two documents are taken on record and marked as documents "A" and "B" for identification.

(3.) On going through these documents and also the Compromise Pursis, we find that the landlord and the developer were necessary parties to this Petition. But the Petitioner has not joined them as party Respondents. In fact, there are several terms and conditions agreed to between the parties, which create rights and obligations between the parties, if we take careful look at the Compromise Pursis filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court.