SYNAPSE LABS PVT LTD THROU. ITS DIRECTOR VISHAL ASHOK DHAWANversusM/S A.M. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPERS THROU. ITS PARTNER BABAJAN RAJ MOHD ALMELKAR

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO.9208 OF 2025


Synapse Labs Pvt. Limited               ....   Petitioner
           Vs.
M/s A.M. Builders & Developers          ....   Respondents

Mr. Shivprasad Page, Advocate (through VC) for Petitioners.

                                  CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                  DATE   : 17th September 2026

P.C. :
1.       By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated

12th January 2023 passed the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, below

Exhibit-11 in Civil Suit No. 34 of 2022, whereby the Petitioners have been

directed to deposit in Court the arrears of license fees amounting to

Rs.77,75,440/- along with GST of Rs.13,99,599/-, and to continue depositing

license fees at the rate of Rs.4,85,965/- per month succeeding from 1 st April

2022 onwards in respect of the suit premises.

2.       The said order has been passed under Section 15A of the Code of

Civil Procedure. The learned Court has, prima facie, observed that the

Plaintiff and the Defendants executed a registered Leave and License

Agreement dated 4th May 2017 for a period of 60 months, commencing from

1st April 2017 and ending on 31st March 2022.
                                       1/3
54 WP 9208.2025.doc                                                    Dusane
3.     Under the said Agreement, the license fee was fixed at Rs.4,22,579/-

per month, plus applicable GST, for the period from 1st April 2017 to 31st

March 2020, and at Rs.4,85,965/- per month for the period from 1st April

2020 to 31st March 2022, plus applicable GST and municipal taxes.

4.     It is the case of the Plaintiff that, from December 2020 onwards, the

Defendants failed and neglected to pay the license fees. Consequently, the

Suit came to be instituted seeking eviction of the Defendants from the suit

premises.

5.     During the pendency of the Suit, the Plaintiff filed an application

seeking a direction to the Defendants to pay the arrears of license fees for

the period from December 2020 to 31st March 2022, amounting to

Rs.77,75,440/-, along with GST of Rs.13,19,599/-, together with interest at

the rate of 18% per annum. The Plaintiff further sought payment of double

licence fees at the rate of Rs.9,71,990/- per month, along with applicable

GST, from 1st April 2022 until the Defendants vacate the suit premises.

6.     The said application at Exhibit-6 was contested by the Defendants.

7.     The Trial Court, upon considering the material on record, held that the

Defendant was under a contractual obligation to pay license fees for the

period from December 2020 to 31st March 2022, amounting to Rs.

77,75,440/-, along with GST of Rs. 13,99,599/-, to the Plaintiff. The

                                     2/3
54 WP 9208.2025.doc                                                  Dusane
Defendant failed to make the said payments, thereby committing a breach of

the Leave and License Agreement. Accordingly, during the pendency of the

proceedings, the Trial Court directed the Defendant to deposit the aforesaid

amount under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8.     The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has

paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards taxes and, therefore, is not liable to pay the

said amount. However, no such contention was raised in the defence filed in

reply to Exhibit-16. Further, there is no material on record before the learned

Trial Court to indicate that the Petitioner had paid Rs. 80,00,000/- towards

taxes. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the

Court below.

9.     Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Petitioner has

independently paid the maintenance charges, which were the responsibility

of the owner. The Applicant may take such a stand before the Trial Court in

the course of the trial. However, it is pertinent to note that this aspect was

not mentioned in the reply filed by the Applicant to the Exhibit-16

Application.

10.    The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.



                                                 [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]

                                     3/3
54 WP 9208.2025.doc                                                   Dusane