SURESH MANOHARLAL JUMANI Vs. AASIA MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendants impugn the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, allowing the application of the plaintiff seeking inspection of the suit premises along with its representatives/Architect/surveyors and other professionals for taking measurements, filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act.

(2.) The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendants/present petitioners are the tenants of the suit premises. The plaintiff has filed a suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No.150/208 of 2010 seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises from the defendants by invoking Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act of 1999' for the sake of brevity) ie seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely for demolition and reconstruction as envisaged under section 16(1)(i) of the Act of 1999. As per the said Act, the plaintiff has to give an undertaking as prescribed under Section 16(6)(d) of the said Act. One of the undertakings that is required to be given is that Plans and estimates for the new building or new floor or floors to be erected by the landlord include premises for each tenant with carpet area equivalent to the area of the premises in his occupation in the building sought to be demolished subject to a variation of 5 percent in the area.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the area in occupation of the present petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 is 200 sq.ft. and that of petitioner no.2/defendant no.4 is 730 sq.ft., whereas, according to the defendants, the area in occupation of petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 is 203.50 sq.ft and that of petitioner no.2/defendant no.4 is 1565 sq.ft.