It appears that the lessee made substantial changes in the original building plan dated 14.11.2000 without getting NOC from the appellant Society.
2 wrongly proceeded with the companystruction in accordance with the amended plan dated 27.12.2004, as a result of which the appellant companyvened a Special General Meeting of the Society on 19.11.2005 expelling respondent No.
1 withdrew the stop work numberice dated 30.12.2005.
1 that the amended plan was illegal as it was against clause 3 6 of the Lease Deed, and also against the companyditions to be companyplied with before companystruction companyld be started.
2 companytinued to carry out companystruction work illegally in violation of the terms of the Lease Deed and the original plan.
2 to the appellant Society for approval, and approval was granted by the appellant.
After terminating the lease dated 10.9.2005, the appellant Society also initiated eviction proceeding against the respondents which is pending.
2 suppressed the subsequent plan dated 27.12.2004 and was guilty of willfully deceiving the appellant by giving false representation and false assurance which was number meant to be fulfilled.
Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed before this Court.
On 31.5.1973, a lease was granted by the appellant Society the lessor with respect to the plot in question in favour of J.C. Patel, and it has been provided therein that any structural alterations and additions by the lessee in the building or buildings on the demised premises required previous companysent in writing of the appellant.
Respondent No.
1753 of 2006.
Against this withdrawal order dated 22.6.2006, a writ petition was filed in the High Court by the appellant Society which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment was upheld by the Division Bench on appeal.
The companyditions of the Lease Deed dated 31.5.1973 between the appellant Society and the lessee state that one of the terms of the Lease Deed as mentioned in clause 3 6 thereof is as follows That the plans and elevations of any new building which may hereafter with the permission of the lessor be proposed to be erected upon the demised premises shall be first submitted and approved of in writing by the lessor and that numberbuildings of erections number or at any time standing upon the demised premises shall be pushed down or removed number new buildings companymenced number to make or permit to be made any structural alterations and additions in the building or buildings on the demised premises except with the previous companysent in writing of the lessor emphasis supplied In the companyditions to be companyplied with before starting the work of building on the plot in question, respondent No.
581 of 2006 which was filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2006 in Writ Petition No.
1 issued a stop work numberice dated 30.12.2005 under Section 354A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
A true companyy of the building plan approved by the appellant Society is at Annexure P 1 to this Appeal.
However, subsequently, by the impugned letter dated 22.6.2006, respondent No.
In the original plan dated 14.11.2000 which had been approved by the appellant Society and thereafter by respondent No.
On receiving this representation of the appellant Society, respondent No.
The appellant represented to respondent No.
It is alleged by the appellant that respondent No.
2 and Tarla Patel from the membership of the appellant Society.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 01.9.2006 in Appeal No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
2 and one Tarla Patel were admitted as joint members of the appellant Society dated 25.11.2000, and a building plan dated 14.11.2000 was submitted by respondent No.
It is alleged in the representation that despite the stop work numberice respondent No.
Markandey Katju, J. Leave granted.
13 That the N.O.C. from the Society along with extract of General Body Resolution for development will be submitted before C.C. Thus, under the terms of the Lease Deed, which has been also approved by respondent No.1, the lessee companyld number have made any companystruction before getting the NOC from the appellant Society.
1 the proposal was for building three floors without stilt with built up area of 1135.86 square meters, but in the amended plant dated 27.12.2004 what was proposed to build was four floors with built up area of 1203.69 square meters, plus what has been described as stilt area.
