2019 Supreme(SC) 199

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
LULLU VAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS – APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1973 OF 2019 ( ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) 15944 OF 2018)
WITH
LULLU VAS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS – APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
DEVCHAND PIRAJI WAGHMARE & ORS. – ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 123 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) 15944 OF 2018
Decided on : 22-02-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
The party seeking the remedy has to make out a prima facie case on merits, and has to satisfy the court that there is some basis to its claim regarding the existence of his right. The court must balance the comparative hardship or mischief which is likely to occur from withholding the relief, against that which would likely arise from granting it. It has to be further established that non-interference by the court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except to grant the relief sought.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Equity – Party seeking the remedy should make out a prima facie case on merits – Should satisfy court that there is some basis to his claim regarding the existence of his right – Court must balance comparative hardship or mischief which is likely to occur from withholding the relief, against that which would likely arise from granting it – Party seeking relief must establish that non-interference by court would result in "irreparable injury" to him – And, that there is no other remedy available to the party except to grant the relief sought. (Para 25)

       (b) Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Sections 70 and 71 – Appellants claiming relief on basis of allegedly accepted lease and payment of consideration – Said deed not a registered document – The issue being subject matter of pending civil suit, Court refraining from making any observations in this regard. (Para 27)

       (c) Administration of justice – Equity – Suit property encroached by slim dwellers allegedly leased to appellants on “as is where is” basis – Appellants claiming their right on that basis – Filing a suit – However, realizing that even if suit goes in their favour they cannot enjoy fruit thereof – Pleading for injunction on developer-respondent 5, restraining him not to dispose 50% of the free saleable area – Slum dwellers on the other hand, forming housing society, respondent 4, in furtherance of their statutory rights – Seeking rehabilitation under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 – The Act a beneficial legislation – Interests of both parties needs to be balanced – Balance of convenience, held, tilts in favour of respondents – No material before Court to ascertain quantum of damages to appellants – At the same time respondent 5 cannot be restrained from of the free saleable area – Appellants given liberty to make such a prayer before the trial court in the pending suit and implead necessary parties. (Para 31, 32, 33)

       (2015) 6 SCC 534 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Government of Bombay acquired the disputed property (now Worli Estate Scheme No. 58) prior to 1945, and vested the same in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. As per the appellants the MCGM decided to give leasehold rights in perpetuity to Lullu Vas. At that time, about 70 slum structures were pre-existing on the said land. Since Lullu Vas demanded possession, on 05.11.1965, the MCGM handed over symbolic possession of the said plot on "as is where is basis"- when it was still occupied by the encroaching hutments.

       In 1976 the disputed area attained the status of the declared slum, entitled for redevelopment.

       In 1996, the slum dwellers residing on the said land formed a cooperative housing society "New Sagar Vihar" (respondent no. 4) and submitted a proposal for slum rehabilitation to the SRA, and the same was approved by issuing a Letter of Intent and an Intimation of Approval on 16.06.1999. In furtherance of the above, a commencement certificate was issued on 13.10.1999 and respondent no. 4 appointed a developer (respondent no. 5) and promoter for the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and to build new flats.

       The HPC concluded that the land belonged to the respondent no. 3 (MCGM) and the appellants are lessees for 999 years. However, as the LoI had lapsed and respondents no. 4 and 5 had filed a separate application for revalidation of the LoI dated 16.06.1999 before the SRA, the HPC directed the SRA to hear both the parties and pass orders on the merits of the case.

       The CEO, SRA revalidated the LoI in favour of the respondents no. 4 and 5. This order of revalidation by the SRA was challenged by the appellants before the HPC. This appeal was allowed and consequently, the order of the CEO, SRA was set aside. Consequently the SRA allowed the application preferred by the appellants seeking to record the scheme.

       Respondent no. 2 (MCGM) withdrew/cancelled its earlier orders, decisions and communications which were claimed as acceptance of the claim of late Lullu Vas as lessees.

       Respondents no. 4 and 5 filed a Writ Petition challenging the second order passed by the HPC cancelling the LoI issued in their favour. The respondents no. 4 and 5 preferred Notice of Motion, seeking stay of the order passed by the HPC.

       The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 by setting aside the order of the HPC, and quashing and setting aside the consequential orders or letters of the SRA dated 06.06.2011 and 06.09.2013.

       Finding of the Court:

       The adjudication of the dispute has to be based on principles of equity.

       Result: Civil appeal and the contempt petition disposed of.