The lack of privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the new developer led to the denial of ad-interim relief.

JUDGMENT

Riyaz I. Chagla, J. - Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff, learned Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 as also learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No. 8.

2. By the present Interim Application, the Applicant/Plaintiff is seeking an injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 3 to 8, their agents, servants and/or person or persons claiming through them from selling, encumbering any third party right, title and interest in respect of the Suit fat being Flat No. 1304 admeasuring 800 Sq.ft. Carpet area on the 13th floor without car park level in the building known as Samaj Darshan, Parekh Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067 (for short 'Suit fat). The Interim Application also seeks appointment of Court Receiver as a receiver in respect of the Suit fat. Further direction is sought against Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 to reserve area equivalent to the suit fat admeasuring 800 sq.ft. (carpet area) to protect the legitimate right of the Applicant/Plaintiff in respect of the Suit fat. Certain other consequential relief is also sought for.

3. The Applicant/Plaintiff claims to have purchased the Suit fat for consideration under the Agreement for Sale dated 25th July, 2017 executed between Defendant No. 1 as Developer and the Applicant as purchaser. The Applicant/ Plaintiff has stated that he has paid the entire total agreed consideration price in respect of Suit fat of Rs. 1,03,00,000/-on or before execution and registration of the Agreement for Sale. As per the annexure to the Plaint at Exhibit 'M' the full consideration of the Suit fat is shown to have been paid in cash. The Receipt for which is stated to be annexed to the Agreement for Sale.

4. The Applicant/Plaintiff being aggrieved by not having been put in possession of the Suit fat No. 1304 has fled the present Suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement for Sale against the Defendant No. 1 and has sought a direction against Defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 8 to handover the Suit fat No. 1304 to the Plaintiff. In the Suit the present Interim Application has been taken out.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff states that at this stage the Applicant presses for ad-interim relief by way of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 from creating any third party rights in respect of the Suit fat No. 1304 as well as directing Defendant No. 3 to 8 to reserve area equivalent to the Suit fat admeasuring 800 Sq.ft. (Carpet area) to protect the legitimate rights of the Applicant/Plaintiff in the Suit fat.

6. The ad-interim relief sought by the Applicant is vehemently opposed by learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 8 - New developer as well as learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, the owners of the Suit property which is defined in paragraph 3 of the Plaint. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Defendant No. 8 that the Applicant/Plaintiff being a purchaser of the Suit fat from Defendant No. 1, the erstwhile developer has no privy with the new developer and/or owner and cannot claim possession from them. His claim can be only against Defendant No. 1. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 8 has relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram :- S.C. Gupte, J.) in Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New D.N. Nagar Co-Op. Housing Society Union Ltd. & Ors., Notice of Motion No. 961 of 2013 in Suit No. 262 of 2012 dated 1st December, 2014. He has in particular relied upon paragraphs 16.6 and 16.11 as well as 17 of the said decision. He has submitted that this Court had held in that case that there is no privity of contract between the Society and third party purchasers claiming under, VaidehiAkash Housing Pvt. Ltd. ('Vaidehi') the erstwhile Developer. The third party purchasers cannot claim specific performance of their respective agreements for sale except through Vaidehi. The third party purchasers were held to have no case against the Society or Rustomjee, the new Developer, for Specific Performance of their individual agree