Old/deepali plaint leela tuniya

IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI

L.C. SUIT NO. OF 2018

SMT. LEELA RIJHUMAL TUNIYA )

Aged 92 years, Occupation : Business )

Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai )

RESIDING AT 1/8 Rukmani Niwas. )

Tulsi Pipe Road, Dadar (West), )

Mumbai 400 028 )..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION )

OF GREATER MUMBAI )

Incorporated under the MMC Act, 1888 )

Having its office at Mahapalika Marg, )

Mumbai 400 001 through ASSISTANT )

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER “G” North Ward)

Municipal Office behind Plaza Cinema, )

Harishchandra Yalve Marg, Dadar (West) )

Mumbai 400 028. ) …DEFENDANTS

THE PLAINTIFF ABOVENAMED STATES AS UNDER :

1. The plaintiff is having her address as mentioned in the

cause title above. The Defendant is a statutory body

constituted under the provision of the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act 1888 ( the MMC Act) for the city of

Mumbai.

2. The plaintiff states that her husband Rijhumal

Samanomal Tuniya was the tenant of stall /wooden

cupboard admeasuring 2 ft. x 1.5 ft. and 10ft height at

Bismillah Building, Rande Road, Dadar, Mumbai 400

028 hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises” for

the sake of brevity. The Plaintiff’s husband Rijhumal

Somanomal Tuniya had acquired the suit premises on 9

Th March 1954 by a Deed of assignment from the original owner

Shri. Virjee Abhiraj, which is duly stamped and signed by

both the parties. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-A

is Deed of Assignment dated 9

th

March 1954.

3. The plaintiff states that her husband Shri. Rijuhmal Samanomal

Tuniya started his business of Hosiery goods in the said

suit premises and acquired Shop and Establishment

License from the Defendants on 6

th

December 1955 and

Defendants had issued Shop and Establishment licence

bearing no. G-I-10564 in respect of the suit premises

in which the address of the suit premises is

mentioned. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-B is a

copy of Shop and Establishment licence dated 6

th

December 1995. The Plaintiff states that from time to time

Rijhumal Samanomal Tuniya renewed the said

licence upto his death in 1982.

4. The Plaintiff states that the said Rijhumal Samanomal

Tuniya expired on 15

th

August 1982. Hereto annexed

and marked Exhibit-C is a copy his death cerficate.

The Plaintiff states that the

Rijhumal Samanomal Tuniya died leaving behind six daughters

and two sons and Plaintiff herself as the widow. The

Plaintiff states that the she received an N.O.C from all the

heirs to transfer the Shop & Establishment licence in her name. The

same was transferred in her name on 6

th

January 1983. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-D is

transfer of Shop and establishment licence in respect of

suit premises on plaintiff name.

5. The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff have also obtained

fali licence on 20/1/1977 in respect of the suit

premises. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-E is the

fali licence. The plaintiff is also having the stall board

licence in respect of the suit premises right from 1982.

Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit-F is stall board

licence of 1982.

 6. The plaintiff states that Plaintiff have electricity bill in

her name in respect of the suit premises. hereto

annexed and marked Exhibit-G is the electricity bill of

the suit premises.

7. The Plaintiff states that plaintiff is lady and therefore her

two sons i.e. 1….. and 2 …. are sitting in the suit

premises and doing hosiery business of plaintiff

guidelines. The Plaintiff states that right from 1955 till

2017 the Defendant no.1 officer used to visit for

inspection of the suit premises i.e. fali licence and stall

board licence and for the business. The plaintiff states

that the Defendants have handed over the copy of the

inspection report as and when Defendants officer used

to visit to the suit premises. Hereto annexed and

marked Exhibit-H (colly) is copy of (……..) inspection

report.

8. The plaintiff states that the plaintiff two sons and six

daughters used to conduct the business in the name of

M/s. Leela Hosiery Mart upon the death of Rajhumal

Somanomal Tuniya with the help of the daughter both

the sons used to conduct the said business since the

plaintiff became aged and therefore plaintiff could not

visited the suit premises but as per the plaintiff

instruction her sons used to carry on the business and

under her guidelines.

9. The Plaintiff states that though the plaintiff is the tenant

of the suit premises but the landlord of the suit

premises have not issued any rent receipt to the plaintiff

and her deceased husband. The plaintiff states that the

plaintiff is used to give the rent to the landlord and

landlord used received the rent and used make the

endorsement in the note book and plaintiff have paid

the rent upto December 2017. Hereto annexed and

marked Exhibit- I is endorsement of the landlord in the

diary made by the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff states that on 11

th

January,2018 at about

1.00 P.M. Assistant Municipal Commissioner ‘g’ North

 Ward, along with the Senior Inspector of Fire Brigade

visited to the plaintiff suit premises along with the

demolition squad without any notice. The Plaintiff sons

shocked and suppressed and have no knowledge for

demolition of the suit premises as there was no notice.

The plaintiff states that the Officer of the Defendants

instructed the plaintiff sons to remove the business

articles from the suit premises without explaining for

what purpose they visited and not given any reason

from removing of the article from the suit premises. The

Plaintiff sons are law abiding and Plaintiff sons have

removed the goods and articles from the stall and as

soon as they removed the article the demolition squad

have broken the door as well as demolished one box

from the suit premises. The plaintiff states that the

Plaintiff sons were being threatened within 10 minutes if

they will not removed all article/ goods from the stall

they will demolish entire stall within no second and

further threatened that if they will not removed

themselves they will arrest to the plaintiff sons.

11. The plaintiff states that sons of plaintiff were afraid and

called the plaintiff from her house and as she is old and

aged it took times for 10 minutes before she reach to

the suit premises the defendant officer have demolished

the door of the suit premises and one box attached to

the wall of the suit property. The plaintiff have asked for

the explanation for the purpose of demolition of the

door and box non of the officer have given any

explanation to the plaintiff.

12. The Plaintiff states that the demolition the door and box

of the suit premises is illegal and unlawful without

following due process of law. The suit premises situated

in private property the plaintiff possess the shop and

establishment licence right from 1955, fali licence and

stall board licence and inspite of the same the

defendant fail to give any notice before making an

attempt to remove the suit premises and therefore the

plaintiff states that removal of the door and the box