IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18004 OF 2017

In the matter of:-

Tulsidas Damaji Koli ... Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
& Ors. … Respondents

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 6

1. The instant Reply is being filed on behalf of Respondent

No. 6 to the captioned Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant

seeking rent in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

Thousand Only) per month rent compensation (“Rent”)

from 22nd August, 2013 upto the date of inclusion of his

name in the Annexure II.

2. At the outset, Respondent No.6 submits that the captioned

Appeal is an after-thought, completely devoid of any merit

a complete abuse of the process of law. It is filed with

oblique motives/obvious purposes to extract monies from

the Respondent No. 6 by conveniently interpreting the

Order dated 17th July, 2017 impugned in the present

appeal.
3. At the further outset, it is submitted that none of the

allegations, submissions, contentions and averments

contained in the captioned Appeal should be deemed to

have been admitted by Respondent No.6 unless

specifically admitted herein. Further, Respondent No. 6

denies all allegations, submissions, contentions and

averments which are contrary to all that is set out by

Respondent No. 6 in the pleadings filed before the Wirt

Court and hereinbelow.

4. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS / GROUNDS

Before dealing with the captioned Appeal paragraph-wise,

Respondent No.6 has been advised to firstly set out the

preliminary objections/grounds on which the captioned

Appeal is bound and liable to be dismissed/rejected in

limine by this Hon’ble Court, each of which is without

prejudice to the other and are to be read as a whole:-

4.1 APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE COURT

WITH UNCLEAN HANDS

a) Respondent No. 6 submits that the Appellant has

deliberately and with a view to mislead this Hon’ble Court

not pointed out several material facts and documents.

b) Respondent No.6 submits that it is under no obligation

whatsoever to pay any rent compensation to the Appellant.

The Respondent No. 6 is under the obligation to hand over

permanent alternate accommodation tenements to the

Respondent No. 1, which in turn allots it to its tenants.

The Respondent No. 6 submits that at the time when the

Appellant’s hutment was demolished for the purposes of

redevelopment, the Respondent No. 6 had handed over

adequate transit accommodation premises to the

Respondent No. 1 for the purposes of temporarily

accommodating its tenants who were to be rehabilitated in

the rehab buildings being constructed by the Respondent

No. 6.

c) I say that by letter dated 16th August, 2013 bearing no.

SE/F-N/217/OD/PA(M), the Respondent No. 1 had

pursuant to a lottery conducted in that behalf, allotted

Tenement No. 802 (“Transit Room”), Building 1 Wing A of

the transit building constructed by the Respondent No. 6

to the Appellant for the purposes of temporarily

accommodating him pending his rehabilitation in the

rehab building. This fact is clearly evident from letter dated

29th June, 2015 (Exhibit P-1 to the Appeal) addressed by

the Advocate of the Appellant to the Respondent No. 2

 wherein it has been admitted that the Appellant was

offered transit accommodation in lieu of his hutment.

d) Further, from letter dated 19th October, 2015 bearing no.

SAA/F-North/10618/Praama (Exhibit P/3 to the Appeal),

the Respondent No. 2 has intimated to the Advocate for

the Appellant that the Transit Room was allotted to the

Appellant, however, since the Appellant did not contact the

Respondent No. 2 with the requisite documents to claim

the Transit Room, the Respondent No. 2 issued a public

notice calling upon the Appellant to take possession of the

Transit Room, failing which possession thereof would be

handed over to other tenants on temporary/permanent

basis.

e) From the above letter dated 19th October, 2015 it also

becomes clear that since the Appellant did not come

forward to take possession of the Transit Room the same

was allotted by the to one Kisan G. Koli.

f) From the aforesaid undisputed facts it becomes amply

clear that the Appellant was never entitled to any rent

compensation whatsoever. In fact the Respondent No. 1

had even allotted to the Appellant temporary

accommodation in lieu of the hutment handed over by him

 for the redevelopment project but the Appellant failed to

come forward and take possession for reasons best known

to him.

g) It is thus clear that the Appellant has no right whatsoever

to claim any rent of any nature, either for the period

specified in the present Appeal or otherwise. I say that it

was only out of courtesy and consideration for the fact that

the Appellant would after his name being included in the

Annexure II be entitled to be rehabilitated in the Rehab

Building, did the Respondent No. 6 make an exception and

offer the rent compensation to the Appellant until he was

rehabilitated. The Respondent No. 6 submits that rent

compensation cannot be claimed by the Appellant as a

matter of right, as the same has never been offered or even

agreed to be paid to him. It is clear that the Respondent

No. 6 was never entitled to any rent compensation at all.

4.2 APPELLANT HAS SLEPT OVER HIS RIGHTS

a) It is the Appellants case that the tenancy for his hutment

was transferred in his name in June, 1998. The Appellant

has further claimed that Annexure II in respect of the

subject land was prepared in the year 1999. The Appellant

 has further stated that on 22nd August, 2013 his hutment

was demolished for the purposes of redevelopment.

Surprisingly however, it was only on 29th June, 2015, that

is after almost 2 years of having surrender his hutment for

the redevelopment work did the Appellant for the first time

write to the Respondent No. 2 claiming that he was the

tenant in respect of Hutment No. 4, Chawl No. 17 and not

Harichandra Jiwan.

b) This clearly shows how the Appellant has conveniently

slept over his rights and himself not tried to establish his

rights qua his hutment. It is submitted that on the one

hand the Appellant claims that he was rendered homeless

due to the demolition of his hutment and on the other

hand only seeks to establish his rights in respect thereto

after 2 years of having allegedly been rendered homeless.

c) Basis the conduct of the Appellant, it is submitted by the

Respondent No. 6 that no indulgence of any nature

whatsoever can be shown to the Appellant and that the

captioned Appeal must be dismissed with costs.

4.3 CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT

a) It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 that the

Appellant has also filed Contempt Petition (L) No. 103 of

2017 alleging breaches on behalf of the Respondent No. 1

and its officers.

b) The Respondent No. 6 has not been made a party to the

Contempt Petition (L) No. 103 of 2017. It appears that

immediately after filing the present appeal, the Appellant

has filed the aforesaid contempt petition on 10th October,

2017.

c) It appears that the Contempt Petition has been filed by the

Appellant alleging breaches by the Respondent No. 1 and

its officers of the Impugned Order. The aforesaid contempt

petition is pending. An extract of the case status of the

aforesaid contempt petition, as obtained from the website

of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is annexed hereto and

marked as Exhibit [ ].

d) It is thus submitted by the Respondent No. 6 that the

Appellant ought to disclose the details of the Contempt

Petition (L) No. 103 of 2017 and this Hon’ble Court ought

to consider the same before proceeding with the present

Appeal
5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

5.1. The subject property in this Appeal is the plot

of land bearing Cadastral Survey No. 6 (part) of Sion

Division admeasuring about 14,121 square meters

situate at Sion Bhandarwada, Road No.28 & 8,

Scheme No.6, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai 400 022

together with the chawls/structures/hutments

standing thereon in the Registration District and

Sub District of Mumbai City and Suburban

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Property”). On

the said Property there were 18 chawls and other

structures constructed by the Respondent No. 1 and

structures were occupied by 191 tenants of

Respondent No. 1. The Appellant claims to have been

in occupation of Room/Hut No. 4 in Chawl No. 17.

5.2. The aforesaid chawls were constructed by

Respondent No. 1 prior to the year 1940. There are

about 113 hutment dwellers existing on the said

Property. One Shiv Koliwada Co-operative Housing

Society (“the said Society”) was constituted by 191

tenants of Respondents occupying the said chawls

 and the said 113 hutment dwellers, existing on the

said Property.

5.3. By and under Annexure II dated 30th

December, 1999 issued by Respondent No. 1, the

Respondent No. 1 set out the list of the tenants of

MCGM and certified that 70% of the tenants have

given their consent to join Defendant No. 1 and

undertake reconstruction/redevelopment of the said

Property. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the

Annexure – II dated 30th December, 1999 issued by

Respondent No. 1 to the said Society, as and when

produced. The Appellant’s name was admittedly not

included in the Annexure II.

5.4. By and under Letter of Intent dated 4th April,

2000 Respondent No. 1 granted approval and

sanction of the proposal for the development of the

said Property under regulation 33(7) of the

Development Control Regulations, 1991 (“DCR”) in

the manner and on the terms and conditions as

more particularly set out therein. Respondent No. 3

craves leave to refer to and rely upon the Letter of

Intent dated 4th April, 2000, as and when produced.

5.5. By and under Development Agreement dated

19th October, 2004 executed between the said

Society through the members of its Managing

Committee and the Executive Working Committee

therein of the One Part and the Respondent No. 6

therein referred to as the Developers of the Other

Part, the said Society granted development rights to

the Respondent No. 6, in respect of the said Property,

on the terms and conditions as more particularly set

out therein. Respondent No. 3 craves leave to refer

to and rely upon the said Development Agreement as

and when produced.

5.6. By and under Tripartite Agreement dated 19th

November, 2004 executed between the Respondent

No. 6 through the Joint Municipal Commissioner

therein referred to as the Joint Municipal

Commissioner of the First Part and the said Society

through the members of its Managing Committee

and the Executive Working Committee therein

referred to as the Society of the Second Part and the

Respondent No. 6 therein referred to as the

Developers of the Third Part, the Respondent No. 1

 being the owner of the said Property granted

development rights to the Respondent No. 6 to

redevelop the said Property in the manner and on

the terms and conditions as more particularly set

out therein.

5.7. Under the redevelopment scheme being

implemented by the Respondent No. 6 on the said

Property, the Respondent No. 6 is developing a

Rehab Portion comprising of [ ] buildings wherein

the occupants of the said Property are to be

rehabilitated and a free sale portion comprising of [

] buildings to be sold to third party flat purchasers.

5.8. For the purposes of redevelopment of the said

Property, the huts/chawls constructed by the

Respondent No. 1 on the said Property are to be

vacated and demolished. The occupant/tenant of

every such hut/chawl was eligible for a temporary

transit accommodation pending rehabilitation in the

Rehab Portion. Since the owner of huts/chawls were

the Respondent No. 1, such transit accommodations

were to be handed over by the Respondent No. 6 to

the Respondent No. 1, who would in turn allot the

same to its tenants after conducting a lottery.

5.9. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 6 handed over

the requisite transit accommodations to the

Respondent No. 1 who after having conducted a

lottery, allotted the Transit Room to the Appellant.

From the present appeal itself it becomes evident

that by letter dated 16th August, 2013 the Appellant

was offered the Transit Room, and that too prior to

his hut being demolished. These facts also make it

amply clear that there was never any arrangement

for payment of rent compensation and that all along

the tenants of the Respondent No. 1 were to be

temporarily housed in the transit buildings pending

their rehabilitation.

5.10. It appears that thereafter, since the Appellant

did not come forward to accept the Transit Room, the

Respondent No. 1 even gave a public notice calling

upon the Appellant to come forward to take his

temporary accommodation, failing which the same

would be allotted to another eligible tenant. Since

the Appellant failed to come forward to accept the

Transit Room, the Respondent No. 1 appears to have

allotted the Transit Room to another one of its

tenants.
5.11. Between 22nd August, 2013 when the

Appellant’s hut was vacated until 28th June, 2015,

the Appellant, it appears that the Appellant did not

take any steps to establish his rights as a tenant of

the Respondent No. 1 qua the Room No. 4. This

despite being aware of the fact that his name was not

reflecting in the Annexure II issued in respect of the

said Property and after having vacated and handed

over the Room No. 4.

5.12. Between 29th June, 2015 and 16th November,

2015, several correspondences viz Exhibits P/1 to

P/4 were exchanged between the Appellant and the

Respondent No. 1 with respect to the Appellants

tenancy rights qua the Room No. 4. Pertinently, none

of the aforesaid correspondences have been either

addressed to forwarded to the Respondent No. 6 and

that it has no knowledge of the same.

5.13. The Writ Petition No. 2622 of 2016 came to be

filed by the Appellant on 4th April, 2016. The

Respondent No. 6 filed an affidavit dated 17th July,

2017, wherein its director has inter alia deposed that

once the Appellant was declared as a tenant of the

Respondent No. 1 and his name was included in the

Annexure II issued to the Society for the said

Property, the Respondent No. 6 would pay him rent

compensation from the date his name was included

in the Annexure II till the date he was rehabilitated

in the Rehab Building being constructed by the

Respondent No. 6 on the said Property. The

Appellant raised no objection to this proposal of the

Respondent No. 6 nor has he filed an counter to the

aforesaid affidavit of the Respondent No. 6. The

Appellant in fact accepted the Respondent No. 6’s

proposal and basis thereof the Impugned Order

came to be passed. It is submitted that infact the

Impugned Order itself records that the statement

made on oath by the Authorised Signatory of the

Respondent No. 6 in the Affidavit dated 17th July,

2017 has been accepted by the Hon’ble Writ Court.

It is further submitted that had the Respondent No.

6’s proposal for payment of rent from the date the

Appellant was included in the Annexure II not been

acceptable to him, he would have raised an objection

before the Hon’ble Writ Court itself, but he did not

do so. It is thus clear that the present Appeal is

nothing but a belated afterthought and has been

 filed solely with the intention to extract monies from

the Respondent No. 6 without any just cause or

reasoning.

6. PARA WISE REPLY

It is reiterated that the denial by Respondent No. 6 herein

shall be treated as specific denial to each and every

allegations and claims made by the Appellant as unless

otherwise specifically accepted herein.

6.1 With reference to Paragraphs 1 and 1A of the captioned

Appeal, Respondent No.6 submits that the contents

thereof merit no response.

6.2 With reference to Paragraph 2A, it is submitted that the

Learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

has not erred not granting compensation of Rs. 30,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per month from 22nd

August, 2013 until the date of inclusion of the Appellant’s

name in the Annexure II for the said Property. I reiterate

that there was no arrangement for payment of any rent of

any sum whatsoever and that the offer for rent made by

the Respondent No. 6 in its Affidavit dated 17th July, 2017

was as by way of an exception and that too only

 prospectively on and from the date the Appellant’s name

was included in the Annexure II. The Respondent No. 6

reiterates that the Appellant at the time of hearing the Writ

Petition No. 2622 of 2016, neither pressed for payment of

rent of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) per

month from 22nd August, 2013 nor raised any objection to

the Respondent No. 6’s proposal for payment of rent from

the date Appellant’s name was included in the Annexure

II.

6.3 With reference to paragraph 2B, Respondent No. 6 denies

the contents therein in toto. It is submitted that the

Appellant was never deprived of any alternate

accommodation, whereas the Appellant has admitted that

the he was offered the Transit Room as alternate

accommodation. It is clear that since the Appellant himself

failed to come forward to take possession of the alternative

accommodation, the same was allotted to another eligible

tenant after issuing a public notice. It is further submitted

that the Appellant was never entitled to any rent

compensation, nor did he press for the same at the time of

hearing before the Learned Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court. The Appellant infact accepted the Respondent

No. 6’s proposal to pay rent compensation prospectively

 from the date his name was included in the Annexure II

and therefore the Impugned Order came to be passed.

6.4 With reference to paragraph 2C, it is submitted that even

if it is accepted that the tenancy of the Appellant’s hut was

transferred in his name prior to 30th December, 1999,

there never was any proposal to pay rent compensation to

any of the tenants of the Respondent No. 1, and the benefit

the Appellant was entitled to i.e. the temporary transit

accommodation was already offered to him but it was him

who refused to take possession of the same. After having

given up his benefit to temporary transit accommodation

despite the same being offered to him, the Appellant

cannot now decide to claim rent in lieu thereof.

6.5 With reference to paragraphs 3 and 4, the Respondent No.

6 does not admit to the contents therein and puts the

Appellant to strict proof thereof.

6.6 With reference to paragraph 5A, I say that the Learned

Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has not

committed any error in not granting rent compensation as

alleged in the said paragraph under reply. The Respondent

No. 6 submits once again that the Appellant was never

entitled to any rent compensation nor did he press for the

 same when the Writ Petition No. 2622 of 2016 was heard

and decided by the Appellant. Further, the Appellant did

not even oppose the Respondent No. 6’s proposal to pay

rent compensation from the date his name was included

in the Annexure II and in fact accepted the same, as a

result of which the Impugned Order came to be passed.

6.7 With reference to paragraph 5B, it is denied that the

Appellant has been deprived of any alternate transit

accommodation/rent compensation from 22nd August,

2013 onwards. Respondent No. 6 submits that the

Appellant was never entitled to any rent compensation,

and so far as alternate transit accommodation is

concerned, as stated hereinabove, the same was already

offered to the Appellant, who refused to take the same and

therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant to

claim that he was deprived of alternate transit

accommodation. Respondent No. 6 denies that the

Learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court

committed any error in not granting rent compensation to

the Appellant from 22nd August, 2013. Respondent No. 6

submits that the Appellant was never entitled to any rent

compensation either before of after the inclusion of his

name in the Annexure II.

6.8 With reference to paragraph 5C, the Respondent No. 6

submits that the Respondent No. 6 was never concerned

with the issuance of Annexure II for the said property. The

same was purely between the Respondent No. 1 and the

members of the Society. In fact the Respondent No. 6 was

not even in the picture when the Annexure II in respect of

the said Property was issued. The issue regarding tenancy

is a dispute between the Respondent No. 1 and the

Appellant, and the Respondent No. 6 has no concern

therewith. In any event the Respondent No. 6 submits that

irrespective of when the Appellant’s name was included in

the Annexure II, he was never entitled to any rent

compensation whatsoever. It was only in July, 2017, that

as an exceptional case the Respondent No. 6 for the first

time offered to pay rent to the Appellant, which offer was

never opposed by the Appellant before the Learned

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The Appellant

is not entitled to rent compensation as a matter of right.

Respondent No. 6 states that the only consequential

benefits that the Appellant is entitled to on becoming an

eligible slum dweller is temporary transit accommodation

and thereafter rehabilitation in the Rehab Building being

constructed by the Respondent No. 6 on the said Property.

6.9 With reference to paragraph 5D, the Respondent No. 6

outright denies that it has admitted in Affidavit dated 17th

July, 2017 that the Appellant will be entitled to rent

compensation from the date of inclusion of his name in the

Annexure II upto grant of possession of permanent

alternate accommodation. The Respondent No. 2, in

paragraph 2 of the aforesaid affidavit has categorically

stated that the Appellant will be entitled to permanent

alternate accommodation in the redevelopment project

after his name is included in the Annexure II issued by the

Respondent No. 1. In the said paragraph, the Respondent

No. 6 has further stated that “If the Respondent Nos. 1 to

4 include the name in the Annexure II in place of Serial No.

138 (deceased), by issuing supplementary annexure II, the

Respondent No. 6 would pay the rent compensation to the

Petitioner from the date on which his name is included in

the Annexure II as eligible municipal tenant till the time

permanent alternate accommodation is offered to him. Upon

his inclusion in the said Annexure II, the Petitioner will also

be eligible to be rehabilitated in the Rehab Building No. 2,

as and when the occupation certificate thereof is received.”

It is thus clear that the Respondent No. 6 has never stated

that the Appellant is entitled to rent compensation but has

merely offered rent compensation prospectively as by way

 of an exception. The Respondent No. 6 outright denies that

from the facts and circumstances it is clear that the the

Appellant would be entitled to rent compensation from

22nd August, 2013. It is submitted that the averments

made in the said paragraph under reply are absolutely

false to the knowledge of the Appellant.

6.10 With reference to paragraph 5E, the Respondent No. 6

submits that there is no error in the Impugned Order of

the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and that the Appellant’s

demand for rent compensation from 22nd August, 2013

reeks of malafides and is a belated afterthought to say the

least. It is reiterated that neither was the Appellant ever

entitled to rent compensation in the first place nor did it

press for the same at the time when the Writ Petition No.

2622 of 2016 was heard and the Impugned Order was

passed. The Appellant in-fact accepted the Respondent No.

6’s proposal to pay rent from the date his name was

included in the Annexure.

6.11 With reference to paragraph 6, 7(A) and 7(B), the Appellant

is not entitled to any reliefs whatsoever, and that the

present appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.

7 In view of all that has been set out hereinabove, it is amply

clear that the captioned Appeal filed by the Appellant is

completely devoid of any merit, a complete abuse of the

process of law, based on absolute falsehoods and a

product of dexterous drafting and convenient

interpretation. The captioned Appeal has been filed with

oblique motives/obvious purposes and hence the same

ought to be dismissed in limine with costs in favour of

Respondent No.6.

New Delhi Pranaya Goyal

Drawn on: __.__.2018 Advocate on Record for
Filed on: __.__.2018 Respondent No.6