Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.

Admit.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the appellant and respondents, this appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant No. 1 challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2016, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, thereby making the Notice of Motion No. 1811 of 2016 in S.C. No. 702 of 2016, absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof, restraining defendant No. 1 from entering upon and/or remaining upon the suit property bearing CTS No. 484 (part), situated at village Vile Parle (West), at Gulmohar Road, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049, ad-measuring 4400 sq. meters and further restraining him from carrying out any construction thereon. (For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to by their original status in the trial court as plaintiff and defendant)

4. Facts of the appeal are to the effect that the respondent No. 1 plaintiff claims himself to be the sole proprietory firm of Mr. Rajiv Kashyap. The appellant-defendant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company dealing in construction and development activities. Defendant No. 2 is the statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act; whereas defendant No. 3 is Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short referred as “S.R.A.”). It is common ground between the parties that plaintiff through his Architect placed an offer for development of the property bearing C.T.S. No. 455, 464 and 484 (part). Defendant No. 2 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short referred as, “MHADA”), approved the development of the said property and sanctioned plan vide letter dated 11th March, 2007 addressed to the plaintiff's Architect. The suit property was occupied by several slum dwellers which was declared as “slum” by defendant No. 3-S.R.A. and was declared open for slum redevelopment. The slum dwellers had formed two co-operative housing societies viz (i) Juhu Hanuman Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and (ii) Hanuman Nagar Co-operative Housing Society. Out of them, Juhu Hanuman Nagar Co-operative Housing Society appointed the plaintiff as their developer ; whereas another society appointed defendant No. 1 as their developer.

5. In view thereof, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 executed agreement dated 20th February, 1997 and October, 1997 agreeing amongst themselves to develop property ; whereby plaintiff shall have 80% stake in the said project and defendant No. 1 shall have 20% stake in the said project. In pursuance thereof, various terms have been agreed upon between them. Plaintiff then obtained necessary permissions from defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and spent huge amount for the redevelopment of the said property. Defendant No. 3 also issued Letter of Intent dated 10.03.1998, for development of the S.R.A. scheme.

6. However, due to the litigation between plaintiff and one Shree Bhanubai Nensi Mahila Vidyalaya, a public Trust ; the defendant No. 2, vide letter dated 24.7.2000, informed to the plaintiff that the C.T.S. 484 (part) cannot form the part of the S.R.A. Scheme as it belongs to private party. Defendant No. 3 also informed the plaintiff by the letter dated 2.11.2000 that the S.R.A. scheme cannot be implemented on C.T.S. 484 (part) as defendant No. 2 has withdrawn their no objection for the same.

7. However, subsequent thereto the disputes also arose between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 concerning development of the said S.R.A. scheme. Hence with a view to settle those disputes an agreement came to be executed between the parties on 29.3.2004 whereby plaintiff had resigned as developer of the said scheme in lieu of valuable consideration and allowed defendant No. 1 to obtain Letter of Intent from Slum Rehabilitation Authority, for the entire project except C.T.S. No. 484 (part) Building No. 4. As per clause No. 9 of the said agreement except for this 484 (part) building No. 4, plaintiff removed his charge and