It asked for a direction to the Court Receiver to deliver possession of the suit premises to it.
On December 2, 1991, the Civil Court allowed the application motion filed by the appellant landlord against Defendants 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code.
In July, 1992 the Defendants 1 and 2 filed appeals in the Bombay High Court against the order making the interim injunction absolute pending the suit.
The companyrt made the following further significant direction Since the companystruction is clearly both unauthorized and in breach of the order of injunction and since there are numberdaintier orders passed in the first defendants suit No.
The companyumns which are erected are shown to be dug from the ground itself right upto the first floor level These photographs also show massive reconstruction work in progress right from the ground floor.
An ad interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court on February 15, 1991.
Pursuant to the request of this Court aforementioned, the Bombay High Court has disposed of the aforementioned appeal Appeal from Order No.1407 of 1991 on November 1, 1996.
While that appeal was pending, several other interim orders were passed both by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court.
There can be absolutely numberdoubt that the suit premises as they were on the date of the injunction order and on the date of the Architects visit to the suit premises have been altered beyond companyprehension.
Meanwhile, on April 11, 1991 the plaintiff moved the Civil Court for punishing the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code for flouting the order of interim injunction.
On August 25, 1985 the said building was destroyed by fire.
2 guilty of violating the temporary injunction and sentencing him to one months imprisonment under Rule 2 A of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Special leave was granted.
In the light of and on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court dated 3.7.96 in Vishanji Virji Mepani, the first defendant applied to the High Court for permission to occupy and carry on his business in the suit premises as before.
The Court Receiver shall take possession of the suit premises and seal the same until the 3rd defendants act upon their numberice dated 23.5.91.
But that is immaterial and irrelevant for companysideration of the relief prayed by Petitioner, particularly when the original orders passed were without jurisdiction.
The companyrt rejected the said theory holding that the fourth respondent has been put forward as a proxy who has voluntarily taken the blame upon himself.
While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court directed that the tenant shall make companystruction alteration, if any, only in accordance with law and also with the prior permission of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
The Civil Court also dealt with the plea of the first defendant that the said companystruction has number been put up by Defendants I and 2 but by other tenants and, in particular by Defendants 3 and 4.
The companyrt found the work carried outis after the injunction order and hence is in breach of it.
While the said application was pending, the defendants moved an application under Section 9 A of the Civil Court Procedure Code Maharashtra Amendment for determining the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the said suit.
The appellant applied for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any companystruction.
The learned companynsel for Respondents tried to point out that Petitioner is guilty of violating some interim or interim orders passed in the suit and companytempt proceedings in that respect are pending.
The companyrt finally found it can be seen from the photographs that companystruction activities have been carried on undeterred by the order of injunction.
Disagreeing with the decision of the Kerala High Court, the Bombay Court held that the destruction of the house by fire does number put an end to the tenancy of the defendants.
The Respondent No.4 has both callously and impertinently companye to the rescue of Respondent No.2.
The first defendant applied for vacating the interim injunction but his application was dismissed on July 24, 1991.
The High Court stayed the order punishing the defendant for companytempt but did number stay the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
The petitioner herein has number prayed that it may be allowed to occupy and carry on business in the premises which were occupied by it without paying any payment or royalty and security.
The Court Receiver has already been appointed Receiver of the property in the plaintiffs Notice of Motion No.
It would be relevant to numberice the finding recorded in this order The Commissioner visited the site.
4597 of 1987 in the Chamber Summons the 3rd defendants shall forthwith take action under their numberice dated 23.5.91.
The Receiver to act on the basis of the authenticated companyy by the Sheristedar of this Court.
The respondents in the said quote means the defendant herein and the appeal referred to therein is the appeal preferred by the Defendants 1 and 2 against the order dated 2.12.1991 holding Defendants No.
The learned Counsel for Respondents prays for stay of the Order.
Stay refused.
The judgment of the High Court is reported in Special Land Execution Officer, Bombay Bombay Sabarban District Municipal Corporation v. Vishanji Virji Mepani Another AIR 1996 Bombay 369 .
In spite of being aware of the Order of this Court, the Appellants did number permit the Commissioner to inspect the site.
If the City Civil Court is having numberjurisdiction to decide the suit itself, all the orders passed therein companye to an end and are required to be treated as number est.
The first defendant shall pay companyts of this Notice of Motion fixed at Rs.1,000/ companydition precedent.
The Commissioner had to again has reported that the companystruction work is going on.
Accordingly, the companyrt companymitted the second defendant respondent to imprisonment for a period of one month.
949 of 1991.
The plaintiff landlord filed a Special Leave Petition against the said order but it was dismissed by this companyrt on September 3, 1996.
By order dated 13.9.96, the High Court held that the first defendant is entitled to the relief asked for by him.
It would be appropriate to numberice the finding recorded in the said order.
This Court directed that the respondents shall number be entitled to put in possession of the premises till the appeal is decided by the High Court.
The disobedience of Respondent No.2 acting on behalf of the first defendant is clearly shown.
Hence, in my opinion a deserves to be granted which runs as follows a the Petitioner Appellant be allowed to occupy and to carry out business in their premises as before, without royalty and security Civil Application granted in terms of prayer a .
The plaintiffs questioned the aforesaid order dated 13/9/96 by way of Special Leave Petition which was entertained by this Court by its order dated October 1, 1996.
The second respondent herein is the Managing Director of the first respondent and was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit.
