ANUP CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. KANTILAL N. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a building known as Hari Chambers in Fort, which is the subject matter of the suit. Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos. 8 to 16 are doing their respective business from their respective tenaments in this building. Defendant No.7 is a builder and developer and who is the owner of this property Hari Chambers. After the Defendant No.7 got approval for repairs and rennovation of the building from Bombay Municipal Corporations in 1977, the Defendant No.7 got the building vacated and completed the construction and rennovation in 1979. But he did not get the building reassessed for repaircess.

(2.) ON 24th August, 1977 the Plaintiff agreed to purchase from Defendant No.7 three tentaments bearing Nos. 7,8 and 10, that the sum of Rs.1,250/- remained to be paid and there were similar Agreements entered into between Defendant No.7 and other occupants i.e. Defendants Nos.8 to 16.

(3.) IT is the case of the Plaintiffs that prior to the Public Auction all the occupants of the Hari Chambers came together and decided amongst themselves to from a Co-operative Society and also decided that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 should participate in the auction sale on behalf of the Society and after the purchase Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were to transfer the property to the Society. On 21/11/1983 Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed as Chief Promoter of the Proposed co-operative society, thereafter draft Agreement as per Exhibit 'J' of the plaint was circulated amongst all the members for their approval. However, thereafter the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 lost interest in formation of Society with oblique motive and on 26/6/1990 for the first time Defendant No.6 wrote a letter to the Plaintiff 'claiming rent' asserting their exclusive ownership rights in respect of the entire Hari Chambers and in respect of the Plaintiffs occupancy. This demand of rent and assertion of right gave rise to the present suit wherein the Plaintiff has joined all the other occupants from Defendant Nos.18 to 16 and has claimed number of declarations to defeat the exclusive right of ownership claimed by Defendants Nos.1 to 6.