Bombay High Court
TARUN MAHENDRA PATELversusAMOOL SHIVAJI ROKADE (SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S VIMAL PROPERTIES AND ASSOCIATES
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Court ordered the Appellant-Developer to pay the outstanding transit rent of Rs.7,91,886, accepted the computed property tax and repair cess, and directed that a two‑month default would allow the Respondents to seek a halt to further municipal clearances.
Summary
The Court examined two interim applications concerning the failure of the Appellant-Developer (Tarun Mahendra Patel and others) to pay transit rent and disputed property tax liabilities to the Respondents (Amool Shivaji Rokade). The Appellant had paid a cheque of Rs.17,32,935 but defaulted on rent due for December 2025 and January 2026, and contested the amount of property tax and repair cess. The Court accepted the Respondents' computation of property tax and repair cess, held the Appellant liable to pay Rs.7,91,886 as transit rent by 18 February 2026, and recorded an undertaking to that effect. It also noted the Appellant’s obligation to pay a corpus amount after the plinth commencement certificate and ordered that a default for two consecutive months would permit the Respondents to notify the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to stop further project clearances. Both interim applications were consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- The Appellant-Developer's liability to pay outstanding transit rent.
- The determination of the quantum of property tax and repair cess payable.
- The appropriate judicial measures to enforce payment of transit rent in view of repeated defaults.
- The effect of the plinth commencement certificate on the Appellant's obligation to pay corpus amount.
Subjects
- transit rent
- property tax
- repair cess
- interim application
- default
- municipal corporation
- clearance suspension
- Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:8247
Megha 10_ia 13088 & iast_38298_25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13088 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1049 OF 2023
Tarun Mahendra Patel and Anr. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Amool Shivaji Rokade ...Petitioner
V/s.
Tarun Mahendra Patel and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.38298 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1049 OF 2023
Amool Shivaji Rokade ...Applicant
In the matter between
Amool Shivaji Rokade ...Petitioner
V/s.
Tarun Mahendra Patel and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, i/b. Mr. Mehul A. Shah for the Applicant in
IA/13088/2025 and for Respondent in IAST/38298/2025.
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr. Vaibhav Salvi with Mr. Ashwat Bhoir for
Respondent in IA/13088/2025 and for the Applicant in IAST/38298/2025
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 17 FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:
1) I have heard Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned counsel
appearing for the Applicants in Interim Application No.13088 of 2025
Page No.1 of 5
17 February 2026
Megha 10_ia 13088 & iast_38298_25
and Mr. Gaware Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant in
Interim Application (stamp) No.38298 of 2025.
2) After having considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties this Court is satisBed that the
Appellant-Developer has consistently avoided and deliberately failed to
pay transit rent to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants in the
Appeal. The Interim Applications were kept pending ensuring that all
dues towards transit rent are cleared. On 24 December 2025 the
Appellant handed over cheque for Rs.17,32,935/- to Respondent Nos.1
and 2/Defendants. The issue that remained was in respect of the
property taxes.
3) It has now transpired that next tranches of transit rent
became due and payable on 26 December 2025 and 26 January 2026.
Admittedly, the Appellant has failed to pay the transit rent for the said
two months. In view of this conduct exhibited by the Appellant, this
Court is not inclined to conduct any further enquiry into the property
taxes. There is yet another reason why it is not necessary to devote any
further time on conducting enquiry with regard to quantum of property
taxes. According to Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants, the total
property taxes payable in respect of the Lodge and two shops for the
period from 1 April 2023 to 24 April 2024 together with repairs cess for
the period from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2025 is roughly to the tune of
Rs.2,12,000/-. The Appellant disputes this Bgure and submits that higher
amount is payable towards property taxes. The Appellant has liability to
pay transit rent of Rs.2,87,500/- per month. Considering this position
Page No.2 of 5
17 February 2026
Megha 10_ia 13088 & iast_38298_25
and the fact that the amount involved in respect of the property tax is
insigniBcant, it is not necessary for this Court to devote any further time
in Bnding out the exact amount of property taxes deductible from the
liability of the Appellant to pay the transit rent. In that view of the
matter this Court accepts the following amounts in respect of the
property taxes:-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Outstanding property tax in respect of the 1,50,082/-
subject property from 1.4.2023 to
31.3.2024(Rs.59,934+59,934+15,107+15,107
Outstanding property tax in respect of the 14,148.17
subject property from 1.4.2024 to 30.4.2024
(Rs.67,354+68,096+17,164)
Rs.1,69,778/12+14,148.17)
Outstanding Repair Cess in respect of the 48,448/-
subject property from 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2025
4) At this stage Mr. Gaware Patil submits that Respondent
Nos.1 and 2/Defendants are liable to pay property taxes in respect of all
the six shops. Perusal of the recital Nos.6 and 9 of the Permanent
Alternate Accommodation Agreement dated 12 April 2024 (PAAA) would
indicate that the Appellant himself has accepted the position that the
Agreement is executed only in respect of Green Lodging House and the
two shops. The Appellant himself has accepted that the claim of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants was in respect of only two out of the
six shops. It is further apparent from order dated 24 December 2025 that
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants have not claimed any rights in
respect of the remaining four shops. In that view of the matter,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants are not liable to pay property tax or
repair cess in respect of the said four shops. In respect of two shops, the
Page No.3 of 5
17 February 2026
Megha 10_ia 13088 & iast_38298_25
property tax and repair cess is already factored in above computations.
This, in my view, puts an end to the dispute over property tax liability of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants and the Appellant is precluded from
raising any dispute in relation to property taxes from Respondent Nos.1
and 2/Defendants.
5) After deducting the amount of property taxes and repair
cess as indicated above, the liability of the Appellant to pay transit rent
upto 26 February 2026 is Rs.7,91,886.83. Mr. Gaware Patil, after taking
instructions from the Appellant, who is personally present before the
Court, fairly makes a statement that amount of Rs.7,91,886/- shall be
paid to Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Defendants by 18 February 2026. The
statement is recorded and accepted as undertaking given to the Court.
6) Mr. Khandeparkar invites attention of the Court to clause 5
of the PAAA, under which the Appellant-Developer is under obligation to
pay part of corpus upon the Developer after obtaining plinth
commencement certiBcate. He places on record copy of plinth
commencement certiBcate dated 2 December 2025. Accordingly, Mr.
Gaware Patil, on instructions from the Appellant-Developer, fairly
submits that corpus amount, which has fallen due, shall be paid to
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants on or before 31 March 2026.
7) This Court has noticed consistent defaults on the part of the
Appellant-Developer in paying transit rent and Respondent Nos.1 and
2/Defendants are repeatedly made to approach this Court for seeking
payment of due amount of transit rent. Even during pendency of these
Interim Applications the Appellant has shown audacity of not paying
Page No.4 of 5
17 February 2026
Megha 10_ia 13088 & iast_38298_25
transit rent due and payable on 26 December 2025 and 26 January 2026.
This Court takes serious note of this conduct on the part of the
Appellant. This Court cannot continue to keep vigil on the conduct of the
Appellant for ensuring payment of transit rent to Respondent Nos.1 and
2/Defendants. In that view of the matter some extraordinary measures
need to be adopted in the present case to ensure that Respondent Nos.1
and 2 /Defendants are not made to approach this Court with complaint
of non-payment of transit rent. It is in the light of these peculiar facts of
the present case, it is directed that in the event of the Appellant-
Developer committing default in payment of transit rent for two
consecutive months, Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants shall be
entitled to write to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for not
issuing any further permissions to the Appellant-Developer in respect of
the project in question. Upon receipt of such intimation from
Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Defendants, the MCGM shall accordingly stop
issuing any further clearances to the project of the Appellant. This
direction would be in addition to any other remedies that the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 /Defendants can exercise for recovery of arrears
of transit rent from the Appellant-Developer.
8) Appellant-Developer would be at liberty to exercise legal
remedies in respect of his claim towards scrap.
9) With the above directions, both the Interim Applications are
disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.5 of 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 17 February 2026
Date: 17/02/2026 19:31:31
Checking your session…