DELTA ENTERPRISESversusSHENAZ FARID AHMED ANSARI AND ORS.

                                                                 12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC

                                                                                Santosh

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2026

                      Delta Enterprises                                   ...Applicant
                                       Versus
                      Dr. Farid Ahmed Adbul Gaffar Ansari and
                      ors.                                              …Respondents
                                               WITH
                             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 514 OF 2026

                      Delta Enterprises                                   ...Applicant
                                       Versus
                      Dr. Farid Ahmed Adbul Gaffar Ansari and
                      ors.                                              …Respondents
                                               WITH
                             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2026

                      Delta Enterprises                                  ...Applicants
                                      Versus
                      Shenaz Farid Ahmed Ansari And Ors                 …Respondents

                      Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria, a/w Neuty Thakkar and Sanjay Mali,
                           i/b Tushar Goradia, for the Applicant in all.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                      Mr. Rajiv Narula, a/w Tarang J., i/b Jhangiani Narulla & Asso.,
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
                           for the Respondents.
Date: 2026.10.01
21:13:49 +0530




                                                  CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                  DATED:    29th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      ORDER:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

                      2.   These revision applications are directed against identical

                      orders passed in the Summons for Judgment in three summary

                      suits being, Commercial Summary Suit Nos. 92/2022, 81/2022,

                                                    1/5
                                                    12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC

and 91/2022, whereby, in an almost identical fact situation, the

learned Judge, City Civil Court, was persuaded to grant the

leave to defend the suits, subject to deposit of the principal

amount    purportedly due       and       payable   by   the   applicant-

Defendant No.1 to the respondent(s)/plaintiff(s) towards the

transit rent agreed to be paid under Permanent Alternate

Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) executed by the Defendant

No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs.

3.    The plaintiffs were tenants in a building, “Mohammed Bux

Building”, Byculla, Mumbai. The owners and landlords decided

to redevelop the said property and entered into a registered

Development Agreement with the defendant No. 1, a partnership

firm. The defendant No.1 entered into PAAA on 15 th July, 2010

with the plaintiffs in respect of their respective tenements.

Under Clause 8 of the said agreement, the defendant No.1-

developer agreed to pay to the tenants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per

month by way of rent for the alternate accommodation till the

delivery of possession of the permanent alternate premises in

the developed building. The defendant No.1 agreed to complete

the construction of the building in 24 months from the date of

the commencement certificate, and, in the event of delay, the

defendant No. 1 further agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.


                                    2/5
                                                12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC

20,000/- per month. The         plaintiffs-tenants    delivered   the

possession of their respective tenements to the defendant No. 1

for the purpose of development.

4.   Incontrovertibly, the defendant No. 1 failed to develop the

project in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The

plaintiffs instituted a petition being Writ Petition No.2143/2018,

seeking certain reliefs. In the said petition, a Division Bench of

this Court directed the defendant No. 1 and its partners to

deposit a sum of Rs.50 Crores with the Mumbai Building

Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a unit of MHADA, on or

before 15th April, 2019. In the event the defendant No. 1 and its

partners failed to show their bona fides and deposit the said

amount, the Board was directed to pass an appropriate order in

accordance with law in furtherance of the show cause notices,

including cancellation or withdrawal of the no objection

certificate issued to the defendant No. 1. Indisputably, the

defendant No. 1 failed to deposit the said amount and,

eventually, MHADA cancelled the NOC. The tenants have

thereafter instituted the instant suits for recovery of the amount

of transit rent on the strength of the PAAAs.

5.   Mr. Parsurampuria, the learned Counsel for the applicant,

submitted that the learned Judge, City Civil Court, failed to

                               3/5
                                             12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC

appreciate that the summary suit in the present form was not

maintainable as it did not fall within any of the clauses of Sub-

Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXXVII. Secondly, the claim for

transit rent from the date of the execution of the PAAA was

clearly barred by the law of limitation. At best, the plaintiffs

could lay claim for the transit rent for a period of 3 years

preceding the institution of the suits. It was further submitted

that since no relief was granted in the above-numbered writ

petition by this Court, in regard to the recovery of the transit

rent, the suit would be barred by the principles of res judicata.

6.   None    of     the   aforesaid   submissions   deserve    any

countenance.      Incontrovertibly, under clauses 8 and 9 of the

PAAA, the defendant No. 1 had unequivocally agreed to pay

transit rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the initial

period of 24 months, and, in the event of delay, at the rate of Rs.

20,000/- per month. Thus, the suit is prima facie based on a

written contract covered by sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-

rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXXVII.

7.   The ground of limitation, strenuously pressed into service

by Mr. Parsurampuria, also does not seem to be of such

substance as to warrant an unconditional leave. The liability to

pay transit rent was prima faice in the nature of compensation

                                4/5
                                                  12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC

and not strictly a rent within the realm of a landlord-tenant

jural relationship and disputes. Moreover, the liability was

incurred by the defendant No. 1 to pay the transit rent till the

delivery of possession of the permanent alternate premises in

the newly developed building.

8.    In any event, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that

on the faith of the representation of the defendant No. 1, the

plaintiffs vacated their tenements and thereby irretrievably

altered their possession. Despite an opportunity granted by this

Court in Writ Petition No.2143/2018 to show their bona fide to

develop the property and abide by their contractual and

statutory    obligations    by    depositing       the    amount     of

Rs.50,00,00,000/-, the defendant No.1 failed to comply with the

said order. Prima facie, the defendant No.1 has not raised a

substantial defence.

9.    In these circumstances, the learned Judge, City Civil

Court, was fully justified in granting leave to defend the suit

subject to the condition of the deposit of the claim amount.

10.   Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders

in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.

11.   The revision applications stand dismissed.

                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
                                 5/5