NISHANT SUBHASH DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has challenged the order dtd. 1/2/2018 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai passed in C.C. No.107/ SW/2015 issuing process against the Applicant.

(2.) Heard Shri Karan Kadam, learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri A.R. Patil, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Shri Mihir Gheewala, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

(3.) The complaint was filed by the Respondent No.2. It is his case that he was a tenant for commercial premises i.e. shop no.1, ground floor, Mohamad Mansion, opposite BMC School, Gokhale Road, South, Dadar, Mumbai. He was doing the business of Decorator and Catering since past 17 years. The building was purchased by the Applicant from the original owners vide conveyance deed dtd. 27/12/2009. The Applicant wanted to redevelope that building and he offered a proposal to the Respondent No.2 for temporary transit accommodation on the 7th floor of a residential building which was not accepted by the Respondent No.2. The complaint then refers to the proceedings before the MHADA Authorities and the matter travelled before this Court vide Writ Petition (L) No.977/2014. It was disposed of on 11/4/2014 and the statement made on behalf of the Applicant was recorded that he was willing to give alternate temporary accommodation to the Respondent No.2 on the ground floor. The Respondent No.2 accepted a temporary transit accommodation of Flat No.3, ground floor, building No.2D, Kamna Society, RB S.K. Bole Road, Dadar on 15/4/2014. Subsequently, on 28/10/2014, the Applicant sent a letter to the Respondent No.2 that he had arranged a new premises on the first floor of another building at Prabhadevi because the leave and license period for the ground floor accommodation had expired on 28/10/2014. The Respondent No.2 was not willing to accept the next accommodation as it was not possible for him to carry on his business. The complaint then mentions different instances regarding dispossession. The main grievance of the Respondent No.2 is that the Applicant had not informed him about the temporary transit accommodation on the ground floor was only for six months and he was not intimated about the leave and license agreement. According to the Respondent No.2, he was cheated in this manner.