Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA HUNDRAJ GAGLANIversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the order was substantially complied with and therefore dismissed the contempt petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra H. Gaglani, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and a co‑owner (respondent No.4) had failed to pay rental compensation for a flat he vacated. The court noted that the respondent had offered Rs.14,64,120 as compensation up to January 2020 and, after examining a 2021 communication showing the flat was offered for possession, directed the respondent to compute compensation up to September 2021 and top up the amount. The respondent agreed to enhance the payment and to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement within two weeks. The court examined only the compliance with its earlier direction on payment and found that the order had been substantially complied with. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were dropped, leaving other disputes open for future determination.
Issues considered
- Did the respondent comply with the court's direction to pay rental compensation?
- Should the contempt petition be dismissed on the basis of substantial compliance?
Subjects
- rental compensation
- contempt of court
- municipal corporation
- possession of flat
- alternate accommodation agreement
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.08.29
CHITNIS 11:55:19 +0530 907-conpw.40.2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.40 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2849 OF 2012
Rajendra Hundraj Gaglani ...Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation for
Greater Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Kaushal Tamhane with Mr. Atharav Hadawale, Mr. Prithviraj
Kharat and Mr. Prasad Nagargoje for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra P. Sardar i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the M.C.G.M.
Mr. Ashish Dubey for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 25th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. The Contempt Petition deserves a disposal, as on 11 th
August 2026, we recorded a statement on behalf of the counsel for the
respondent No.4, to pay an amount of Rs.14,64,120/- towards rental
N. S. Chitnis 1/4
907-conpw.40.2015.doc
compensation for the period from 2013 to January 2020. We also
recorded the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the
amount ought to be computed upto 15th December 2024 i.e. the date
on which the flat was vacated and possession of the flat was handed
over to the petitioner.
2. During the course of the hearing before us, the counsel for
the respondent No.4 has produced a communication dated 25 th
September 2021, addressed to the Secretary of Harsha Co-op. Housing
Society Ltd. in regards to the subject of handing over the possession of
the member flats of the Society. This said communication includes the
name of the petitioner - Rajendra H. Gaglani, at Serial No.7, in respect
of Flat No.504, and the handing of the possession of the flat being
indicated as 28th October 2021.
We have noted that all the other owners of the flat whose
names find mention in the said communication, have accepted the
possession in the year 2021 itself. We do not want to get into the
dispute as to whether the notice was served upon the petitioner but
N. S. Chitnis 2/4
907-conpw.40.2015.doc
admittedly if other members are offered the flats, we believe that the
same was also offered to the petitioner. Why the petitioner did not
accept the same is obvious, that he had certain disputes with the
Developer and the Society, for which he had already instituted
proceedings.
3. Therefore, we do not intend to get into the said dispute
and we direct the counsel for the respondent No.4 to compute the
rental compensation upto the month of September 2021 and top up
the amount of Rs.14,64,120/- which is offered as rental compensation
upto January 2020.
4. The counsel for the respondent No.4 makes a statement
that he shall accordingly enhance the amount and make the payment
within a period of two weeks from today. The counsel for the
respondent No.4 further makes a statement on behalf of respondent
No.4 that the said amount shall be disbursed by way of a Demand
Draft.
N. S. Chitnis 3/4
907-conpw.40.2015.doc
5. As far as the execution of Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) is concerned, he is also under
instructions to make a statement that the same shall be executed within
a period of two weeks from today.
Accepting the aforesaid statement, we deem it appropriate
to dispose of the Contempt Petition, though we make it clear that we
have only examined the aspect of non-compliance of the directions
issued by this Court, as regards payment of the rental compensation
and/or if there are other disputes which the petitioner wants to raise,
we have not pronounced upon the same and all rights and contentions
of the parties in that regard are kept open. However, since we find that
the order passed by this Court has been substantially complied with,
we drop the Contempt proceedings.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 4/4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.