JITENDERA SANTILAL SHAH Vs. ZENAL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the Plaintiff's appeal against the order of the learned Judge of the Mumbai City Civil Court, dismissing their Notice of Motion. The Appellants are the Plaintiffs and the Respondent is the Defendant.

(2.) THE Appellants filed the suit for a declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to amend the plans sanctioned on 5.12.2002 regarding the development of the suit property; for a declaration that the amended plans are not binding upon them; for an order directing the Defendant to provide the building occupation certificate in respect of the building in which their flats are situated and to execute a conveyance in favour of the Appellants society. The Appellants have also sought certain reliefs regarding construction and/or repair of certain facilities and disclosure of amounts collected from new flat purchasers and a cellular operator. By prayer (l) the Appellants have sought a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from carrying out any construction work on the suit property contrary to the plan sanctioned on 5.12.2002 and/or putting any construction beyond Wings 'A' and 'B' of the suit property. By prayer (m) the Appellants have sought an order restraining the Defendants from parking their vehicles in the compound of the suit property. The Appellants took out a Notice of Motion seeking interim reliefs in terms of the above reliefs. The learned Judge by the impugned order, dismissed the Notice of Motion.

(3.) ON 5.12.2006, the Bombay Municipal Corporation sanctioned the plans for the redevelopment of the suit plot. Apparently, the plan was sanctioned earlier on 17.8.2002 and was amended on 5.12.2002. In any event, that the construction was required to be carried out as per the plan sanctioned on 5.12.2002 is not in dispute. The commencement certificate was issued on 21.3.2003. As per the plan sanctioned on 5.12.2002, there were open spaces within the said plot on all sides of the building proposed to be constructed. As per this plan, the Defendant constructed twenty flats, ten shops and a basement and handed over possession thereof to the respective Appellants on 1.4.2005.