BLIND RELIEF ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant No. 8 in Suit No 2231 of 1999. The said suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for mainly challenging the order passed by the defendant No. 1 State of Maharashtra that threatened to cancel the lease in favour of the plaintiff as per the orders dated 22-9-1999 and 10-3-1999 passed by the third respondent, Collector of Bombay City annexed to the plaint as Exh. U and V respectively. The suit has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 6th September, 1999 passed by my learned brother H. L. Gokhale, J. The said order amplifies that dispute cropped up therein were among three parties unlike in normal suit. Paragraph 4 of the order makes it amply clear this peculiar aspect of the case, which reads as under : "the defendant No. 4 and its representatives had earlier agreed to vacate the concerned premises but in view of further life give to them by the defendant No. 1 in their orders, the present suit became necessary. The learned Counsel on all the three sides have made their best efforts to see to it that the controversy is resolved amicably and have arrived at the Consent terms which are being tendered to this Court today. "

(2.) APART from the consent terms the courts also make certain orders therein. Therefore, the order passed by this Court on 6th September, 1999 mainly consists of two parts; (1) the order passed by the Court and (2) the orders passed by the Court in terms of consent terms. The Court has, obviously, for the convenience sake made the order in two parts. It is significant to note at this juncture that the first part of the order concludes by paragraph 17 that liberty to the parties to move in the event of any difficulty. Now I have to come to the facts of the case in some detail, as, it is necessary and useful to decide the controversy involved in this case.

(3.) IN 1969, the State of Maharashtra leased to the 1st plaintiff, the Blind Relief Association, a social organization a plot of land for 99 years for the purpose of constructing a building to house the blind school on the nominal lease rent payable at Re. 1 per year. Accordingly, 1st plaintiff started a blind school called "happy Home and School for the Blind", the 6th plaintiff herein. The 6th plaintiff, after constructing multi storied building in the lease hold land, permitted M/s. Deluxe Caterers Private Limited, defendant No. 4 herein to use and occupy the ground floor on the building on a leave and licence basis for five years for the purpose of running restaurant. The said restaurant is called "copper Chimney Restaurant". During the currency of the licence, the aforesaid licence, Bombay Rent Act, 1947 was amended and M/s. Deluxe Caterers, defendant No. 4 has become entitled to protection as tenant and it sought such protection under the Act. The 6th plaintiff thereupon filed suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay as Suit No. 1782/6521 of 1978 inter alia seeking eviction of the 4th defendant. Another suit more or less for the same reliefs has been filed by the 6th plaintiffs as Suit No. 2698/978 of 1979 against 4th defendant. These two suits were compromised and a consent decree was passed on 24th December, 1997. As a result of this compromise, 4th defendant has agreed and undertook to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to 6th plaintiff on or before 31st December, 1997. It appears that the time for vacating the premises by the 4th defendant was consequently varied and time to vacate was extended till 31-3-1999. In the meantime on 20-2-1999, a show cause notice was issued by 3rd defendant, Collector of Bombay as to the cancellation of lease in favour of the first plaintiff and the lease was cancelled by order dated 10th March, 1999 which I have already referred to above as Exh. U and V respectively. It seems that in the meantime, an attempt was made by 4th defendant to avoid eviction from suit premises and made representation to the Chief Minister and in view of the order passed on 23-9-1999 by the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra directed 4th defendant to continue in occupation of the suit premises. Consequently on 23-9-1999, 4th defendant files Misc. Application No. 234 of 1999 in Small Causes Court praying to be relieved himself from the undertaking made before the Court to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1999. In these circumstances, the present Suit No. 2231 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of these orders Exh. U and V with other consequential reliefs.