Mr.Anil Amarchand Dalmiya vs Mrs.Priti Sandeep Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 10636 Bom

            Digitally signed by
SMITA       SMITA JOHNSON
JOHNSON     GONSALVES
            Date: 2022.10.15
GONSALVES   11:23:45 +0530




                             sg                                                              913 .wp116-19.doc


                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.116 OF 2019

                                  Mr. Anil Amarchand Dalmiya                     ...Petitioner
                                       vs.
                                  Mrs. Priti Sandeep Patel                       ...Respondent
                                                                     ....
                                  None for the Petitioner.

                                  Mr. Dhananjay Mahamuni, for the Respondent.
                                                                 ....
                                                   CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

                                                       DATE     : 13 OCTOBER 2022

                                  P.C. :

Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that since 2019, the Petitioner has not paid any amount for occupying the suit premises.

2. The record reveals that by the impugned order and judgment dated 15 February 2018, the Peittioner was directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises, being Flat No.2, First Floor, Su-Prabhat CHS Ltd., 76, Warden Road, Mumbai. The Petitioner was also directed to pay arrears of monthly compensation till 5 February 2017 and double the rate of monthly licence fees at Rs.3,40,000/- from 6 February 2017 till the date of handing over vacant possession of the suit premises.

3. By order dated 4 January 2019, this Court had stayed

sg 913 .wp116-19.doc

execution of the said judgment and decree, subject to the Petitioner depositing 50% of Rs.26,40,150/-. Accordingly, the Petitioner deposited 50% of an amount of Rs.26,40,150/-. By order dated 27 February 2019, the Petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount. Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Petitioner has complied with these two orders and that the Respondent had withdrawn the said amount. It is seen that since 2019, the Petitioner has neither paid any amount to the Respondent nor has he deposited any amount before this Court. Though he has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises, he is occupying the suit premises without making any payment.

4. The Petitioner, who is present in person, states that his Advocate has returned the brief and seeks time to engage an advocate.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent objects for the adjournment on the ground that the Petitioner has stalled the execution proceedings and is enjoying the premises free of cost.

6. The case is adjourned by way of indulgence and final opportunity. The Petitioner is put to notice that no further adjournment will be granted. Stand over to 18 October 2022.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)