Bombay High Court

SHANTADEVI RAMDHANI YADAVversusM/S. PASHMINA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided: 25 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHARMILA U DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court held that the appellant's claim for interim payment of transit rent is not justified and dismissed the appeals.

Summary

The appellant, Mrs. Shantadevi Yadav, sought interim relief for arrears of transit rent and specific performance of two Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements with the respondent, Pashmina Realty Pvt. Ltd., alleging the respondent had failed to pay rent after she handed over possession of two slum structures. The respondent contended that a composite arrangement existed whereby it paid Rs 50,00,000 to the Yadav family for surrender of four structures, and that the appellant had breached the agreements by not vacating the premises, some of which were later demolished by the municipal corporation. The trial court dismissed the interim application, finding no prima facie case of rent default given the substantial compensation already received. On appeal, the High Court examined the nature of the various agreements, the existence of a composite contract, and the requirements for granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction. Applying the principles from Metro Marins and Dorab Cawasji cases, the Court held that the appellant did not establish a strong case for interim relief and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent. Consequently, both appeals and the interim applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

The appellant is entitled to interim relief for payment of transit rent arrears.
Whether a composite agreement covering four structures and compensation exists between the parties.
Whether the appellant breached the agreements by failing to vacate possession.
Whether specific performance of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements should be granted.
Whether the trial court's refusal to grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction was justified.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956

Subjects

interim injunction
rent arrears
specific performance
composite agreement
breach of contract
slum redevelopment
alternate accommodation
possession
demolition
balance of convenience

Judgment

Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
PATHAN
QUTBUDDIN
Date:
PATHAN 2026.06.25
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt
19:15:08
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1140 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30319 OF 2022
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1140 OF 2022
AND
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1163 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.30518 OF 2022
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1163 OF 2022

Mrs. Shantadevi Ramdhani Yadav
Age about 48 years, Occ: Housewife
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant
residing at Room No.304, Bldg. No.7
Satguru Apartment MHADA Colony …Appellant/
Chandivali Saki Vihar Road, Applicant/
Sakinaka, Mumbai 400 072 Org. Plainti1
Versus
M/s. Pashmina Realty Pvt. Ltd.
A Company, incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
o7ce at 3rd Floor, Bengal Chemical,
502, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, ....Defendant/
Mumbai 400 025. Org.Defendant
___________________
Mr. S. P. Srivastava for the Appellant/Applicant/Org.Plainti

Mr. Yash Momaya i/b DSK Legal for the Defendant/Defendant
___________________

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
RESERVED ON :JUNE 11, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 25, 2026
SQ Pathan 1/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. With consent taken up for ;nal disposal forthwith.

2. Both these Appeals ;led at the instance of original Plainti1

challenge identical order dated 24 th February, 2021 passed by the

Trial Court on 24th February 2021, rejecting the Appellant’s seeking

arrears of rent for the period from November 2011 to January

2014, and for payment of further rent from February 2014 till the

Defendant provides transit accommodation and hands over

possession of self-contained Aat. Common submissions were

advanced and both the Appeals from Order are being disposed of

by this common judgment. For sake of clarity, the parties are

referred to by their status before the trial court.

3. S.C Suit No 918 of 2014 and S.C Suit No 917 of 2014 were

;led for speci;c performance of the Agreements for Permanent

Alternate Accommodation dated 19th December 2009, executed by

the Defendant in respect of the structures occupied by the

Plainti1, and for payment of arrears of rent.

4. The Plainti1 claims to have been in use, occupation and

possession of two residential premises admeasuring 10’x30’, both

SQ Pathan 2/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

situated at Gulati Compound, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400 072. The

Defendant acquired development right in the subject property and

approached the Plainti1 and other family members agreeing to

provide two permanent alternate accommodations to the Plainti1

in lieu of two residential premises in possession of the Plainti1.

Accordingly, two unregistered Permanent Alternate

Accommodation Agreements dated 19th December 2009 were

executed by the Defendant with the Plainti1, agreeing to provide

two alternate accommodation admeasuring 350 square feet

carpet area and agreed to pay transit rent of Rs 17,000/ per month.

It was also agreed that the possession of the redeveloped premises

would handed over within 24 months with extended period of 6

months failing which compensation of Rs 1,00,000/ would be paid.

5. The Defendant had issued two cheques amounting to Rs.

3,74,000/- each, being the rent for a period of 22 months, and the

Plainti1 had vacated both the rooms and handed over possession

to the Defendant on date of agreement. Despite issuance of

notice to the Defendant seeking payment of further rent, there

was non-compliance. It is further pleaded that the Plainti1 had

;led S.C. Suit No. 4580 of 2010 against the Defendant for a

SQ Pathan 3/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

declaration that both the agreements are valid and subsisting and

for injunction. The said suit came to be withdrawn, as no relief of

speci;c performance was sought, and thereafter the present suit

came to be ;led.

6. The Plainti1 preferred an interim application seeking a

direction to the Defendant to pay arrears of rent from November

2011 to January 2014, and for payment of further rent, and to

hand over possession of the self-contained Aat.

7. The Defendant resisted the application by setting up a case

of composite arrangement entered into with the Plainti1 and her

husband, under which the Defendant had paid a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- by way of ten agreements dated 19th December

2009 and 6th February 2010 for Rs.5,00,000/- each to the Plainti1

and her family members in lieu of four structures, two of which

stood in the name of the Plainti1 and the other two in the name of

the Plainti1's husband. The Plainti1 has failed to comply with her

obligation to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises on

execution of the agreement dated 19th December 2009, and

subsequently the structures were demolished by the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation. In the earlier Suit No. 4580 of 2010, where a

SQ Pathan 4/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

similar relief for payment of rent was sought, ad-interim relief was

refused by an order dated 25th October 2012. It was pleaded that

there were several agreements entered into between the

Defendant and the Plainti1 and her husband, recording a

composite arrangement in respect of four structures, pursuant to

which a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the Plainti1 and her

husband as monetary compensation in respect of the four

structures and an additional amount of Rs.7,48,000/- was paid

towards rent and despite receiving the said payments, the Plainti1

did not vacate the suit structures.

8. The Plainti1's son, Ravi Yadav, and daughter, Manju Yadav,

had ;led two suits, being Suit (Lodging) Nos. 1256 of 2011 and

1257 of 2011, claiming that there were only four structures

belonging to the Yadav family. In the proceedings ;led by the

Plainti1’s children, no ad-interim relief was granted. Neither the

Plainti1 nor her family members have handed over possession of

the suit premises to the Defendant and were, therefore, in breach

of their obligations and not entitled to any relief. Insofar as the

remaining two structures are concerned, the Plainti1's husband

had not vacated or handed over possession of the remaining two

SQ Pathan 5/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

structures. The Defendant has ;led Suit No. 4697 of 2013 in this

Court seeking a declaration that the composite arrangement

contained in the Agreements for Permanent Alternate

Accommodation, ten agreements providing for payment of an

aggregate amount of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, and the

agreement providing for payment of an amount of Rs.7,48,000/-

towards rent in respect of the two residential structures standing

on the same property in the name of the Plainti1, and which were

subsequently demolished, now stands frustrated, and a direction

for payment of sum of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest and a

sum of Rs.3,74,000/- along with interest from the date of execution

of the rental agreements/letter dated 8th February 2010.

9. In rejoinder, it is denied that there was a composite

arrangement between the Defendant and the Plainti1, under

which the Defendant had paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by way of

ten agreements dated 19th December 2009 and 6th February 2010

for Rs.5,00,000/- each. It is stated that the Defendant, by

misguiding the Plainti1, had taken the signatures of all the family

members and had paid only Rs.5,00,000/- for each structure. The

possession of the suit premises was handed over after execution of

SQ Pathan 6/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

the agreement and the Defendant had demolished the same

immediately thereafter. The structures belonging to the children

of the Plainti1 were separate structures and the respective suits

had been ;led to protect their premises, but the Defendant, with

the assistance of the Municipal Corporation, got those structures

demolished. The Plainti1's structures were demolished by the

Defendant immediately after execution of the agreement dated

19th December 2009. The structures which were demolished by the

Corporation were not the structures of the Plainti1, as alleged by

the Defendant.

10. There is a further a7davit dated 11th November 2019 ;led

by the Plainti1, claiming that the Defendant had paid a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation to acquire other huts, for which

separate agreements, a7davits, and Powers of Attorney were

executed and ten such agreements were executed. It is contended

that a writing dated 8th February 2010 was executed between the

Plainti1 and the Defendant by which the Defendant paid

Rs.3,74,000/- each for the two structures, and that the said writing

as well as ;ve agreements dated 19th December 2009 were sought

to be produced. An additional a7davit came to be ;led by the

SQ Pathan 7/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

Defendant in response to the a7davit dated 11 th November 2019,

opposing the production of the documents on the ground that

there was no reference to the same in the suit or in the motion. It is

contended that the Plainti1 had categorically denied the existence

of writing dated 8th February 2010 by advocate's letter dated 1 st

October 2013, which is annexed to the plaint and cannot rely on

the writing dated 8th February 2010. There is a further a7davit of

December 2019 ;led by the Plainti1 reiterating the earlier stand

taken and contending that the Plainti1 is relying upon the writing

dated 8th February 2010 in respect of payment of rent and not the

agreement dated 8th February 2010.

11. The Trial Court, noted that the agreement tendered by the

Defendant with its reply is di1erent from the agreement on which

the suit is based. It accepted that the case of Plainti1 that each

agreement is di1erent is prima facie convincing. It also noted that

the documents ;led by the Defendant shows that the demolition

by the Corporation was of the structures of Ravi Yadav and Manju

Yadav. Noting that substantial amounts have been paid by the

Defendant to the Plainti1, may be pertaining to other agreements,

for further amounts, the Plainti1 would have to establish that she

SQ Pathan 8/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

delivered possession to the Defendant. It opined that there is no

details when the possession was handed over. It held that as breach

is alleged by the Defendant, no ;ndings can be given that the

claim for rent is justi;able and accordingly dismissed the

application.

12. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the Plainti1

points out the agreement for alternate accommodation of 19 th

December 2009 in respect of two structures. He would further

point out the writing dated 8th February 2010, executed by the

Defendant itself recording that vacant possession of the existing

structures was handed over and that a sum of Rs.3,74,000/-

towards 22 months' rent in advance was paid, which is also

endorsed by the Plainti1. He would further submit that the Trial

Court has ignored the documentary evidence produced on record,

which showed the date on which possession was handed over. He

would further submit that, in the additional a7davit of the

Plainti1 dated 11th November 2019, there is a speci;c reference to

the writing dated 8th February 2010, which has not been considered

by the Trial Court. He submits that, as the Plainti1 had handed over

possession of the structures as contemplated under the

SQ Pathan 9/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

agreement, there is no breach and the Defendant is liable to pay

the arrears of the rent.

13. Per contra, Mr. Momaya, learned counsel appearing for the

Defendant, submitted that the Plainti1 is a part of the Yadav

family comprising Ramdhani-her husband, two sons, Ravi and

Ashish, and daughter Manju, who collectively occupied four

unauthorised structures on portion of the subject land. s He

submits that the pleadings in the suits ;led by Ravi and Manju

acknowledge that there were only four structures with the Yadav

family. He would further submit that an oral composite

understanding was entered into between the Yadav family and the

Defendant, under which the Yadav family agreed to surrender and

hand over the original four structures to the Defendant for

monetary payment of Rs.50,00,000/- paid under ten separate

writings dated 19th December 2009 and 6th February 2010 of Rs.

5,00,000/ each, two permanent alternate accommodation

agreements dated 19th December 2009 entered into with the

Plainti1 herein and two permanent alternate accommodation

agreements of 19th December 2009 entered into with the husband

of the Plainti1. He submits that under the composite agreement,

SQ Pathan 10/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

the Yadav family was to hand over peaceful possession of all the

four structures, as recorded in these ten writings, but Ravi Yadav

and Manju Yadav ;led multiple proceedings claiming to be in

possession.

14. He submits that the Defendant has paid a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- to the Yadav family and also paid a sum of

Rs.7,48,000/- as transit rent for all the four original structures to

the Plainti1, at the request of the Yadav family. He would further

submit that the Plainti1 has mentioned di1erent dates in di1erent

proceedings for handing over possession. He would submit that the

writing dated 8th February 2010, under which the Plainti1 claims to

have handed over possession, is not referred to in the plaint and

was sought to be produced only after the arguments on the Notice

of Motion were concluded. He would further point out that, though

the Plainti1 herein claims that the sum of Rs.7,48,000/- was

payable towards two units of the Plainti1 herein, the husband of

the Plainti1 had addressed a notice dated 10th October 2012

acknowledging receipt of rent previously received by him, which

constitutes an admission that the sum of Rs.7,48,000/- was paid to

the Plainti1 as a composite payment towards all four units.

SQ Pathan 11/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

15. He submits that, in breach of the agreement, the Yadav

family has failed to hand over possession of the original four

structures and has instituted series of litigations. He submits that

two structures came to be demolished by the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation, in furtherance of its statutory duties and that, till

date, the husband of the Plainti1 has not handed over the

remaining two structures. He would submit that the Defendant has

;led Suit No. 4697 of 2013 seeking a declaration that the

agreements stand frustrated and seeking refund of the amounts,

which is pending. He would further point out that the Plainti1

seeks reliefs which are in the nature of ;nal reliefs at the

interlocutory stage. He submits that the Plainti1 has suppressed

the fact that, in Suit No. 4580 of 2010, the Plainti1 claimed to be in

possession even as of October 2012. He submits that the discretion

exercised by the Trial Court is neither arbitrary nor perverse and

does not warrant any interference. In support of his submissions,

he relies upon the following decisions:

i. State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Ram Sukhi Devi1
ii. Metro Marins & Anr. vs. Bonus Watch Co.(P) Ltd. &
Ors.2
1 (2005) 9 SCC 733

2 (2004) 7 SCC 478

SQ Pathan 12/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

iii. Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd.3
iv. Vasudev Nene & Ors. vs. Dattatraya Raghunath
Jog4

16. Mr. Srivastava, denies any composite agreement and would

point out the annexure to the Defendant's a7davit in reply, which

refers to ten agreements as tenant compensation agreements,

four agreements as alternate accommodation agreements, and

two agreements as rent agreements. He would submit that these

were independent agreements and that the Plainti1 had handed

over possession of all the structures on 8th February 2010, as

evidenced by the writing. He submits that the demolition of the

structures by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was in respect of

the huts occupied by the children of the Plainti1 and had no nexus

with the agreements entered into between the Plainti1 and the

Defendant. He would further point out that, in the suit of 2012, the

Plainti1 had inadvertently stated that she was in occupation and

possession of two residential premises, whereas the Plainti1 had

also claimed rent from January 2012, which indicates that the

pleading about being in possession was an inadvertent error.

17. Rival contentions now fall for determination:
3 1990 (Supp) SCC 727

4 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 212 : (1999) 3 Bom CR 684 : 1999 AIHC 3739

SQ Pathan 13/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

18. The Plainti1 is claiming speci;c performance of the two

Agreements for Permanent Alternate Accommodation dated 19 th

December, 2009 executed between the Plainti1 and the

Defendant. Under the said agreements, the obligation of

Defendant was to provide permanent alternate accommodation

admeasuring 350 square feet carpet area and to pay transit rent.

The obligation upon the Plainti1 was to hand over vacant

possession of the premises occupied by her. There is also another

agreement of the same date i.e. 19 th December, 2009 entered into

between the Plainti1 and the Defendant, which has been produced

by the Defendant. The agreement records that the Plainti1 had

represented to the Defendant that it was not conducive to avail of

alternate accommodation at the site and had expressed her desire

to make arrangements for alternate accommodation, in the event

of the Plainti1 being provided with compensation against

surrendering her rights and possession of the existing structures to

the Developer. It records that upon the Plainti1 being provided

with compensation against surrendering the rights in and

possession of the existing structure to the Defendant, the

Defendant would be enabled to utilise the proposed alternate

SQ Pathan 14/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

accommodation to rehouse any other eligible slum dweller or

project-a1ected person under the Slum Development Scheme of

the Government of India. Clause (3) of the agreement records that

the Plainti1 has agreed to surrender all her right, title, interest,

and claims in the existing premises in favour of the Defendant and

the full, total, and complete cost and price for surrender of the

existing premises and for acquiring another accommodation was

mutually agreed at Rs.5,00,000/-. Clause (5) records that the sum of

Rs 5,00,000/ has been paid by the Defendant to the Plainti1. Clause

(6) records that simultaneously with the execution of the

agreement, the Plainti1 has handed over vacant and peaceful

possession of the existing premises and the Defendant has

resumed physical possession thereof. The agreement has been

signed by the Director of the Defendant and by the Plainti1. The

agreement has been produced by the Defendant in support of its

claim of a composite arrangement having been entered into

between the Plainti1 and her family members.

19. The Defendant has also produced, along with its reply, the

statement detailing the agreements entered into between the

Plainti1 and the other family members, which shows ten

SQ Pathan 15/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

agreements executed with the Plainti1 and her husband agreeing

for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each styled as Tenant

Compensation, four agreements entered into between the Plainti1

and her husband styled as alternate agreement, and two

agreements dated 8th February 2010 with the Plainti1 as rent

agreements for a rent period of 22 months for the period 8 th

December, 2011 for Rs.3,74,000/- each.

20. Prima facie, from the material on record, apart from the

alternate accommodation agreements, there are other agreements

executed by the Plainti1, under which the Plainti1 and her

husband have received substantial amount of Rs 50,00,000/. The

plaint is conspicuously silent on the receipt of Rs 50,00,000/. The

submissions canvassed indicates that the Plainti1 seeks to distance

herself from the other agreements under which she and her

husband have received substantial amount and would assert her

rights under the two permanent alternate accommodation

agreements. The agreements will have to be considered holistically

to appreciate the true nature of arrangements between the

parties, the adjustment of the amounts paid, the default, if any,

etc. These issues require evidence to be led. The Defendant would

SQ Pathan 16/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

rely on the ten agreements executed with the members of the

Plainti1's family, as set out in the statement annexed to the

a7davit in reply, to claim composite arrangement entered into

between the Defendant and the Yadav family and the breach

thereof. The Plainti1 has admitted the existence of ten

agreements and receipt of Rs 50,00,000/ as compensation but

claims that the same has been paid towards acquiring other huts,

whereas the suits ;led by the Plainti1’s children acknowledge that

the Yadav family was in possession of four structures. In the

a7davit of December, 2019, the Plainti1 has stated that the

Defendant has taken ;ve other structures for which they have paid

Rs 5,00,000/- each.

21. In the reply dated 10th September 2013 ;led by the

Defendant to the Plainti1's notice dated 6th August 2013, the

Defendant has referred to the composite arrangement under

which all four structures were required to be handed over for

which compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid. The said reply also

refers to two agreements dated 8th February 2010 recording

payment of Rs.3,74,000/- under each of the agreements executed

by the Plainti1 towards 22 months' rent in respect of all four

SQ Pathan 17/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

structures as well as the fact that the two structures, of which

possession was not handed over, were demolished by the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation, against which the Plainti1's children, Ravi

Yadav and Manju Yadav, had instituted suits.

22. The Defendant claims that the Yadav family occupied four

structures and under the composite agreement, all four structures

were required to be handed over, whereas the Plainti1 claims that

there were about ten structures for which ten agreements were

executed under which Rs 5,00,000/ each were paid.

23. There is no clarity as to the number of structures which were

in occupation of the Plainti1, the reason for payment of Rs

50,00,000/ as there are two di1erent arrangements on record i.e.

one in the nature of surrender of rights and other for Permanent

Alternate Accommodation of the same date. The Plainti1 has also

received payment of Rs 7,48,000/ as advance transit rent. In event

the Plainti1 and her husband were in occupation of four structures

only, the demolition of two structures by the Corporation would

prima facie constitute breach of obligation. Even if the structures

which were demolished were occupied by the Plainti1’s children,

considering the payment of Rs 50,00,000/ , prima facie it appears

SQ Pathan 18/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

that the understanding was to hand over possession of all four

structures. Prima facie, at this stage, without evidence being led,

there is no clarity about the nature of arrangement between the

parties or even about the number of structures which were in

occupation of Yadav family. The Plainti1 seeks interim relief of

payment of transit rent from the year 2011 onwards claiming

default in payment of transit rent as the sum of Rs 7,48,000/ was

received as rent for 22 months for two structures. There is no

accounting of the sum of Rs 50,00,000/ admittedly received by the

Plainti1 and her husband. The Defendant claims breach of the

agreement by the Plainti1 which will have to be considered in the

context of overall arrangement entered into between the parties.

The Plainti1’s agreements cannot be considered in isolation of the

other agreements under which the Defendant has parted with

substantial consideration. The payment of Rs 50,00,000/ cannot be

ignored and have to be accounted for by the Plainti1.

24. The Plainti1’s reliance on the writing dated 8 th February

2010, does not ;nd place in the plaint and is produced subsequent

to the conclusion of the oral arguments. The Trial Court has rightly

not referred to the writing which is not pleaded in the plaint. Even

SQ Pathan 19/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

accepting the documents on record establishing the handing over

of possession of two structures, the payment of Rs 50,00,000/

would cover the liability of payment of transit rent. In view of the

substantial payment received by the Plainti1 and her husband, at

this stage, it is di7cult to accept that there is default in payment

of transit rent. In event the Defendant succeeds in the trial to

establish the breach of obligation by the Plainti1, the restitution

would be di7cult.

25. The Defendant has also instituted independent proceedings

claiming breach of contract based on the composite agreement

and there is dispute about the compliance of obligation by the

Plainti1 endangering the subsistence of the agreements of which

speci;c performance has been sought. The Trial Court has rightly

noted that substantial amount has been paid by the Defendant to

the Plainti1 even though pertaining to other agreements and that

the existence of agreement is disputed on the count of breach.

26. The Plainti1 has suppressed the receipt of Rs 50,00,000/ and

failed to account for the same while seeking transit rent from

November, 2011 onwards. In event the payment of Rs 50,00,000/,

was not towards the payment of transit rent, the Plainti1 is

SQ Pathan 20/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

required to explain the purpose for the said payment. The answer

to these issues require evidence to be led and no prima facie case

of default in payment of transit rent is made out by the Plainti1. As

the Plainti1 is in receipt of substantial amount and the documents

indicate that two of the structures were demolished by the

Corporation, the balance of convenience is in favour of the

Defendant. The rejection of the interim application does not cause

irreparable loss to the Plainti1 as the Plainti1 would be entitled to

the same in event the suit is decreed.

27. In the case of Metro Marins & Anr. vs. Bonus Watch Co. (P)

Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court noted the decision in

Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden5 that an interim

mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases. In

Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held in

paragraph 16 and 17 as under:

“16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction are
thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo
of the last non-contested status which preceded the
pending controversy until the ;nal hearing when full relief
may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that
have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was
wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the
granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would
5 (1990) 2 SCC 117
SQ Pathan 21/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice
or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was
granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who
succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice
or irreparable harm, Courts have evolved certain guide-lines.
Generally stated, these guidelines are:

(1) The plainti1 has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be
of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is
normally required for a prohibitory injunction;
(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury
which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money;

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one
seeking such relief.

17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or
refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall
ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to
be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in
each case. Though the above guidelines are neither
exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be
exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as
pre-requisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions
would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.”

28. Applying these principles to the facts of present case, the

present case cannot be said to be an exceptional case warranting

grant of mandatory injunction of payment of transit rent in view of

the admitted position of receipt of substantial amount from the

Defendant.

SQ Pathan 22/23
901- AO-1140-2022 & 1163-2022-J .odt

29. The Trial Court has rightly considered the material on record

to conclude that the Plainti1’s claim for payment of transit rent is

not justi;ed at this stage.

30. In light of the discussion above, both the Appeals are devoid

of merits and stand dismissed.

31. Interim Applications do not survive for consideration and are

disposed of accordingly.

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

SQ Pathan 23/23

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…