Transferee of leasehold plot rights entitled to 0% additional lease premium waiver for construction delay due to specific performance litigation against original lessee, as delay beyond transferee control and lessor party to suit.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the demand notice dated 25/06/2024 and 27/06/2024 issued by the respondent No.2-City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ("CIDCO" for short).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that CIDCO vide letter of allotment dated 26/06/2005 allotted plot of land bearing Plot No.104, admeasuring 450.090 sq. mtrs. situated at Sector 19, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai to one Mr. M.S.K. Mapara, the Proprietor of Pioneer Developers ("Mr. Mapara" for short). Mr. Mapara made substantial payment of consideration/premium to CIDCO against the letter of allotment and accordingly, CIDCO proposed to execute the agreement to lease of the said plot in his favour soon subject to payment of the balance premium and other charges and compliance of other formalities.

3. Mr. Mapara then offered to sale, assign and transfer all his leasehold rights, title and interest etc. in respect of the suit plot, free from all encumbrances in favour of Mr. Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan viz. the petitioner herein, for the total and lump sum consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. The petitioner thus purchased and acquired all leasehold rights, title and interest in respect of the said plot from Mr. Mapara under the "Agreement for transfer of Assignment of Rights" dated 08/12/2010, whereby Mr. Mapara agreed to execute the tripartite agreement in favour of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner made substantial payment of Rs.29,00,000/- to Mr. Mapara and was also ready and willing to pay balance amount of Rs.26,00,000/- against the total consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- to Mr. Mapara.

5. CIDCO entered into and executed a registered agreement of lease dated 20/10/2010 thereby granting the leasehold rights, title and interest with respect to the said plot in favour of Mr. Mapara on the terms and conditions and for the premium, etc. as stated in the agreement of lease. CIDCO also delivered the actual and physical possession of the suit plot in favour of Mr. Mapara.

6. Mr. Mapara refused to perform his part of the contract, therefore the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.377 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel for declaration, specific performance and injunction against Mr. Mapara and CIDCO in respect of the said plot along with an application for temporary injunction against the defendants below Exhibit-5 praying for the following reliefs:-

"a. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representative, officers and/or any other person/s claiming through or under them be restrain by an order of temporary injunction on from dealing with and disposing of the suit Plot to any other person or party or in manner creating third party interests with respect to the Suit Plot.

b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant their agents, servants, officers, employees, representatives, officers and/or any other person/s claiming through or under them be restrained by an Order of temporary injunction from transferring and/or executing Conveyance and/or the Tripartite Agreement of t