1

W P NO. 17 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.17 OF 2021

Mr Amin Shaikh,

43 years of age, married,

businessman, Indian National,

and residing at H. No.4/67A,

Mollem Bhat, Saliegao,

Bardez, Goa – 403511. …... Petitioner

V e r s u s

1. Mr. Neeraj Gupta,

44 years of age, married,

in business, residing at

H.No.785, Shantam, Alto

Betim, Bardez, Goa-403521.

Bardez, Goa – 403521.

2. Mr Shobit Gupta,

44 years of age, married,

in business, residing at

H. No.785, Shantam,

Alto Betim,

Bardez, Goa – 403521. ….. Respondents.

Mr. Santosh Bharne, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

DATE: 25th January 2021.

Pronounced on: 2^nd February, 2021.

ORDER:

The petitioner is the lessee, and the respondents are the lessors. Both

parties entered into an agreement of lease on 1^st June 2015. As the lease was

for five years, it had to end by 31^st May 2020.

2. On 31^st July 2019, however, the respondents terminated the lease on

the grounds of non-payment of rent. They required the petitioner to vacate

the building. In that context, on 14^th August 2019, the petitioner filed

2

W P NO. 17 2021

Regular Civil Suit No.208/2019/A before the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

at Mapusa. The suit contained the following reliefs:

a) For a Decree/Order declaring that the termination of the lease by

the defendant no.1 in the manner done in the notice of termination

dated 31/7/2019 is contrary to the covenants, terms and conditions

of the deed of lease dated 30/5/2015 and as null and void.

b) For a Decree/Order of permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, … interfering with the Bar & Restaurant business carried

out by the plaintiff in the demised premises or from disturbing the

peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the demised

premises or dispossessing the plaintiff from the demised premises, for

the entire reminder tenure of the lease ending 31/5/2020, without

following due process of law.

c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit

for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants …

dispossessing the plaintiff from the demised premises, for the entire

reminder tenure of the lease ending 31/5/2020, without following due

process of law.

d) For ad interim ex parte relief in terms of prayer (c ) above.

e) For such other and further relief’s as the circumstances of

the case may require.

(italics supplied)

3. On 16^th August 2019, the trial Court ordered status quo, and it has

still been in force.

4. As we have already noticed, the lease had to expire on 31^st May

2020. And it did. Before the lease had expired, the petitioner pleaded in the

suit that his possession should not be disturbed until the lease expired. After

31^st May 2020, once the lead had expired, the respondents issued a notice to

the petitioner on 17^th June 2020, asking him to vacate the premises. Then, on

26^th June 2020, the petitioner replied. In that reply, the petitioner has

pleaded, what he terms, ‘subsequent events’ and insisted that the

respondents owed him Rs.15.00 lakhs. And until they repaid the amount, the

petitioner must be allowed to continue in possession, ‘as has been orally

agreed’.

5. Later, the petitioner has filed two amendment