Bombay High Court
Dwarkabai Rajendra Murumkar vs Laxmikant Keshav Deshpande And ... on 23 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 911 wp 18.2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2016
Smt. Dwarkabai Rajendra Murumkar
Age 53 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Shivaji Road, Ward No.3,
Deshpande Chal, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Laxmikant Keshav Deshpande
Age 53, years, Occu. Business,
R/o Shivaji Road, Ward No.3,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Sau. Sunanda @ Nandini Dilip Joshi
Age 62, years, Occu. Service,
R/o Shivaji Road, Ward No.3,
Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
----
Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Suvarna Zaware, Advocate for the respondents.
----
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 23-06-2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner who is judgment-debtor in Regular
Darkhast No. 109 of 2014 is before this court aggrieved by the
order dated 27-11-2015, whereunder application exhibit-21 filed by
mub
2 911 wp 18.2016.odt
present respondent-decree holder has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.R. Karpe,
vehemently submits that petitioner could not vacate premises in
terms of compromise for the reason since litigation is going on in
respect of other tenants and so long as that litigation is not over
and those tenants would not vacate the tenanted property, as such,
the construction would not be started by respondent as per terms
of compromise.
It is difficult to abide by the terms of starting
construction and in the process, the terms of the compromise
decree are unlikely to be fructify.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
landlord submits that looking at the physical location of the
property which is occupied by the petitioner, despite the permission
for construction having been sought and its renewal having been
given, the respondent-landlord is not in a position to start
construction activity. It is but for occupati3on by petitioner and non-
adherence of the terms of compromise lot of hardship and
difficulties are being caused in starting the construction.
5. Learned counsel further goes on to submit that the
litigation referred to by learned counsel for petitioner is with regard
to small portion at the extreme western end of the land owned by
mub
3 911 wp 18.2016.odt
respondent-landlord. She further submits that the construction in
the circumstances, can be started and can also be completed to a
substantial extent and, as a matter of fact, in case the construction
is allowed to be carried on, the petitioner herself would stand
benefited for she would have early chance of re-occupying the
newly constructed premises pursuant to the compromise terms.
Pendency of litigation of other tenants would not hamper
construction over substantial area of property and construction
could be arranged for accordingly.
6. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned order whereunder, learned judge has taken stock of the
situation along with citations which were relied on behalf of the
petitioner, the impugned order does not appear to be an untenable
order. Having regard to the submissions on behalf of the landlord,
it appears to be expedient and in the interest of petitioner herself to
let the construction begin at the earliest. As such, I am not inclined
to interfere with the order.
7. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH)
JUDGE
mub
