1 wp257.2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION

257

OF 2022

M/s. Vashishta Projects,

A Registered Partnership Firm -

Having Registration Number

F/1704 of 2009,Through its partners -

a) Shri A. Vidyasri Bhaskar s/o

A. Ramamohanrao,

Aged about 52 yrs,

b)Smt. A. Srilaxmi w/o. Shri A.V.S.

Bhaskar, Aged about 48 yrs,

Through their power of attorney -

Kishore s/o. Nagorao Bhoyar,

Address – Rain Tree Park-I, Phase 14,

KPHB Colony, Hyderabad. PETITIONER

...V E R S U S...

1.

Bhagwandas S/o Shivdas Rathi,

Aged about 72 years,

R/o. Pandurang Ward, Arvi,

Tal. Arvi Dist. Wardha.

2.

PMA Construction Company,

A registered partnership firm,

Registration Number

NGP-6573/2000-01,

Through its Partner – Mr. Ashok

Maliram Agrawal,

Aged about 55 years,

R/o. Flat number 201/202,

Maharshi Sudhashree Apartment,

Darda Lane, Rahate Colony,

Nagpur – 440012

...RESPONDENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. M.G. Sarda, counsel for petitioner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 wp257.2022

CORA

M: ROHIT

B. DEO, J.

DATE : 19.01.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT:

The petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit

7/2021 instituted against the respondents herein, seeking a

decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents

from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit land,

without due process of law.

2.

The petitioner and the respondents shall be

hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

3.

The plaintiff averred to have accepted the

execution of rehabilitation and up-gradation of Arvi – Talegaon

road and to the said end to have obtained the leasehold rights

of land admeasuring 1.5 acre from survey 131/1/A vide

agreement dated 17.5.2019. The plaintiff then claimed to have

converted the lease land from agricultural to non-agricultural

and to have set up plant and ancillary machinery, described in

Annexure A.

4.

The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the

3 wp257.2022

lease property and averred that on 25.1.2021, the defendant

had attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff.

5.

Perusal of the cryptic plaint reveals that the

plaintiff did not disclose that the period of lease expired on

16.04.2020.

6.

The plaintiff preferred an application under Order

39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (“CPC”, for short) which application too does not

disclose that the lease period expired on 16.04.2020.

7.

Perusal of the lease agreement dated 17.5.2019

reveals that the lease was granted for the period 17.5.2019 to

16.4.2020. Clause 16 obligates the lessee to hand over the

possession immediately on the expiry of the lease period if the

lease is not terminated earlier. Notably, it is not even the case

of the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the application seeking

temporary injunction, that any amount was paid to the lessor as

occupation charges after the lease period ended on 16.04.2020.

8.

While defendant 1 is the lessor, defendant 2 is the

4 wp257.2022

firm which was allotted the work after the Public Works

Department terminated the contract of the plaintiff. The

defendant 2 contended that after the lease between plaintiff

and defendant 1 ended, the defendant 1 executed agreement

dated 10.12.2020 in favour of defendant 2 and that the

defendant 2 is in possession of the