Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Haji Ismail Haji Musafirkhana Trust & 5 ... vs Yusuf Saleh Mohammad Jafarani & Ors. And ... on 12 December, 2018

Author: G.S. Patel

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                                 914-NMS937-17.DOC




 Shephali



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 937 OF 2017
                                         IN
                               SUIT NO. 3299 OF 2003


 Haji Ismail Haji Musafirkhana Trust & Ors                              ...Plaintiffs
        Versus
 Yusuf Saleh Mohammad Jafarani & Ors                                ...Defendants
        And
 The Court Receiver                                                  ...Respondent

Mr Farhan Dubash, with Apeksha Munot, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co, for Plaintiff No. 7.

Mr Ivor P D'cruz, with Pierre Fernandes, for Defendants Nos. 4, 7(b), to 7(e), 10, 11(a) to 11(d), 12(a) to 12(d), 13, 17(a) to 17(c), 18(a), 18(b), 20(a) to 20(d), 23(a), 24(a), 24(b), 25(a) to 25(c), 28, 30 & 36.

Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, with Amol Joshi, Sufiyan Shaikh, i/b Nazmeen Shaikh, for the Applicant/Defendant No. 21A. Mr PG Lad, with Sayli Apte, for Defendant No. 38, MHADA.

                               CORAM:       G.S. PATEL, J
                               DATED:       12th December 2018
 PC:-

1. The question raised by the Applicant in this Notice of Motion, Amjad Choudhary, Defendant No. 21A to the suit, is that the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a unit of MHADA, has not decided the Applicant's application that the Page 1 of 3 12th December 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:59:23 ::: 914-NMS937-17.DOC Applicant is entitled to benefit of the rehabilitation scheme framed in regard to his claim of lawful occupancy of room No. 20, first floor, Haji Ismail Musafir Khana Building, Pakmodia Street, Mumbai 400

003.

2. The opposition from Plaintiff No. 7, the Saifee Burhanuddin Upliftment Trust or SBUT is that it has already been held to be the owner occupant of these very premises. My attention is drawn to previous orders including one of SA Bobde, J, as he then was, of 2nd February 2007 when possession was taken by the Court Receiver. That order in itself will not suffice to oust the claim presented by Dr Chandrachud for the Applicant. Apart from anything else, that order itself recognises that the claim then made by this very Applicant, Amjad Choudhary and, shortly thereafter, by his father. The question that the Board must decide is whether the Applicant has such documents and proof as would entitle him to the benefit of the rehabilitation scheme.

3. I do not think he can be shut out from the consideration altogether. The SBUT may well stand on a completely different footing. I will give MHADA and the Board time till 1st February 2019 to decide the Applicant's submission and application. Dr Chandrachud confirms on instructions that the necessary application with all supporting documents has already been made. He further confirms that should MHADA call for any documents, the Applicant will furnish them within four working days of that demand being received. For convenience and to save time, Dr Chandrachud's Attorneys will forward a copy of the application and supporting documents to Mr Lad's office.

12th December 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:59:23 ::: 914-NMS937-17.DOC

4. MHADA and the Board will hear both the Applicant (or his Advocate) as also Plaintiff No. 7 or its Advocates.

5. List the matter on 6th February 2019. List Notice of Motion No. 125 of 2018 along with this Notice of Motion.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 12th December 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 05:59:23 :::