Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

51. It so happened that in June 1994 the ownership of the property changed the hands and respondent No.5 purchased it from Smt.Kalavati Desai and others. The same letter of intent of 1992 was followed up by respondent No.5. He agreed to all the terms as contained in that letter of intent specifically by writing through his Architects and gave specific undertaking that he will abide by all those terms and conditions. It is on this footing that the N.O.C. was given by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 on 1st October 1994 and later on the I.O.D. by respondent No.4 for ground plus six floors on 25th January 1999. The terms of the letter of intent and the N.O.C., as accepted by respondent No.5, are very clear. The reconstruction was for rehousing the tenants of the old building. If at all any body surrendered the tenancy, the landlord was required to revert back to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and inform them and it was for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to put in another needy tenant from their transit camp. In any case, it is very clear that respondent No.5 could not put in any occupant without the permission of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. He understood this very clearly as seen from the information given to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in September 1994 that Mr.Shah and Mr.Latke, tenants of the 1st floor, had surrendered their tenancy and in their place, Smt.Vinodini Dalal, mother of respondent No.5 was inducted as a tenant. Inasmuch as no dispute is raised by respondent Nos.1 to 3 to this, it can be taken that her tenancy of these two rooms was accepted. However, there is nothing to indicate on record as to what happened to the other original tenants whose names continued on the record of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 until 1995. It is very pertinent to note that in the meeting of the Promoters called by respondent No.5 as the Chief Promoter on 30th October 1995 to form a Co-operative Housing Society, the names of as many as 9 tenants figured as attending the first meeting of the proposed Society. On that form their signatures appear including that of the petitioner and this form is forwarded to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the Architect of respondent No.5 as recently as on 18th November 1996.

52. It is also material to note that when the Architects of respondent No.5 sought N.O.C. on 6.9.1994 they forwarded the agreements dated 8th August 1994 entered into with all the tenants. They are all stereo-type and the petitioner also entered into with one such agreement for a flat of 256 sq.ft. on 5th floor being flat No.10. It is on the strength of the compliance of various conditions of the letter of intent dated 19.11.1992 that the N.O.C. was sought by the application dated 6.9.1994. Respondent No.5, therefore, cannot go behind the N.O.C. granted on 1.10.1994 which was on the basis of his undertaking that he will make available flat No.10 on 5th floor of 256 sq.ft. to the petitioner. Later-on when the building was ready, the Architects of respondent No.5 sought the recommendation for occupation certificate by their letter dated 18th November 1996. Along with that application, the letter from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies granting permission to open account and reserving the name of Prabhat Co-operative Housing Society was also forwarded. Along with that letter a form containing the minutes of the first meeting of the Promoters held on 30th October 1995 was also forwarded and one of the nine signataries thereto is the petitioner. It is on this footing that the occupation certificate has been recommended and later on granted in part by respondent No.4-Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.5, therefore, cannot go behind these letters, representations, assurances and the commitments made by him through these communications.

75. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was a tenant on the third floor of this building, which came to be demolished in 1979. As pointed out above, her name figures in the list of tenants enclosed with the registered conveyance dated 6th June 1994 under which the respondent No.5 purchased this property from the predecessor in title Smt.Kalavati Desai. Her name also figures in the list enclosed with the letter dated 6th September 1994 sent by the architects of the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.3 accepting the redevelopment of the property as per the Letter of Intent dated 19th November 1992 sent by the Board to his predecessor in title. Thereafter her name figures once again in the final list of tenants jointly prepared by respondent No.5 and respondent No.3 which is enclosed with the affidavit of respondent No.5 dated 23rd September 1994. Not only that, but her name figures in the list of promoter members of the proposed Prabhat Cooperative Housing Society and which list was forwarded by the architects of respondent No.5 to the respondent No.3 after the building was constructed along with his letter dated 24th January 1996 seeking an occupation certificate upto 4th floor. Besides, it is material to note that the respondent No.5 has given indemnity / affidavits dated 8th August 1994 stating that all the conditions of Letter of Intent dated 19th November 1992 will be fulfilled and that unless arrangements are made to occupy all the occupiers from the old existing buildings into the proposed new building, the respondent No.5 will not approach the Municipal Corporation for occupation certificate. The petitioner has also annexed to the petition the notice issued to her under section 77(b) of the MHAD Act on 25th July 1978 to vacate the premises and the certificate given by respondent No.3 later on in the year 1983 that she was a tenant of the erstwhile building which was subsequently demolished. Thus there can be no doubt that the petitioner was a tenant / occupant of this building until it was demolished.

83. It has also come on record that whereas Respondent No.4 was contending that permission to construct was only upto 6th floor and a part on 7th floor, Respondent No.5 and his Architect Kamlesh Kothari were insisting that the permission granted was also for the 8th floor. He, however, refused to produce NOC given by the BMC for the inspection of the Municipal officers alleging that the original NOC, when produced to the Municipal Officers, will be destroyed or tampered with. This is the level to which Respondent No.5 and his Architect Mr.Kamlesh Kothari have gone. However, what is again interesting to observe is that the authorities of the Municipal Corporation have not taken any steps whatsoever to get the injunction passed against them vacated, nor have they taken any steps so far against the Architect Kamlesh Kothari.