SHAMMI NAGAPAL Vs. SUDHIR NAGAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff seeking directions to the defendants to forthwith hand over and restore to the plaintiff the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises being flat no. 209, Olympus Apartments, Altamound Road, Mumbai (for short, "the suit premises") and, in the alternative, for the appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver for the suit premises and put the plaintiff in possession thereof as an agent without royalty or compensation. The plaintiff is further seeking a direction to the defendants to restore to the plaintiff all movable furniture/articles taken from the suit premises. The plaintiff has also prayed for the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect and take an inventory of the suit premises and for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner dealing with, disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit premises. The suit is instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 alleging forcible dispossession from the suit premises between 14.3.2008 and 17.3.2008 when the plaintiff was out of India.

(2.) The relevant factual matrix, as disclosed from the material placed before this Court and the submissions, that are advanced by the learned senior counsel for the parties , to the extent it is necessary for deciding this motion, is as under. Defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff are husband and wife, who got married on 1.9.1987. Till 1993, they resided with the parents of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 is a Director of Piem Hotels Limited (for short, "Piem"). During the period between 1993 and 1995, they were staying in Hotel President. In 1995 the suit premises was purchased by Piem as Director's accommodation for defendant no. 1. According to the plaintiff, she and defendant no. 1 resided at the suit premises from 1996 onwards till she was dispossessed in March, 2008.

(3.) It appears that since the society refused permission to defendant no. 2 to induct its employees in the suit premises for want of NOC from Piem, it remained vacant till filing of the suit and thereafter till this date in view of the statement made by their learned senior counsel. When the Motion was placed before this Court for ad-interim relief, the learned Counsel for the parties have agreed for final disposal at this stage and accordingly it was adjourned to enable the parties to file their affidavits, rejoinders, surrejoinder etc.