IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

BANDRA BRANCH

L.E SUIT NO. ____OF 2022

MR. GAUTAM GULAB ADVANI )

Age 42 Years.Occupation- Self Employed, )
Residing at Flat No. 42, 4th Floor, )
Sunil Apartment Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug Road, Santacruz (West), )
Mumbai 400054. )....Plaintiff
V/S
1. M/S. Aaina )
A registered Partnership Firm through )
Its partners Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
Having its registered office at )
Flat no. 12, 1st Floor, )
Sunil apartment, Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug Road, Santacruz (West) )
Mumbai 400054. )....Defendant 1
2. Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
Aged 57 years, occupation –Business, )
Office at Flat No. 12, 1st Floor, )
Sunil Apartment, Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug road, Santacruz (west) )
Mumbai 400054. )….Defendant 2
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS

1. At the outset, the Defendants submit that the present suit filed by the

Plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and without any cause of action.

The Plaintiff has filed the present suit with the dishonest intention and

has come before this Hon’ble Court with false and concocted stories to

evict the Defendants from the suit premises and claim unreasonable and

1
 irrational amount towards outstanding license fees. The present suit is

thus liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

2. At the outset this Defendants says that this Defendants do not admit any

of the allegations made in the Plaint and put the Plaintiffs to the strict

proof thereof. Nothing mentioned in the Plaint is deemed to have been

admitted unless the same is specifically admitted by these Defendants

which is contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated hereinafter.

3. The Plaintiff has made several false and misleading claims / statements.

The Plaintiff is therefore guilty of suggestion falsi. The Plaintiff has not

approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the Plaintiff has

suppressed several material facts while instituting the Suit.

4. Without prejudice to the above, in order to put clear and true facts and

picture before this Hon’ble Court the Defendants state as follows;

a. The Defendants state that the Plaintiff is not an owner of the property
in question i.e. Garage No. 1 situated at Sunil Apartments, plot No.
83/C/17, Meera baugh Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400054,
(herein after referred as “the said premises”) whereas in spite of
knowledge of ownership status of the Suit property, the Plaintiff
executed and registered with Defendants a Leave and Licenses
Agreement dated 3rd June 2015.
b. The Defendants state that at the time of registration and execution of
the said leave and licenses agreement dated 3rd June 2015, (herein after
referred as “the said agreement”) the Plaintiff willfully misrepresented
Defendants that he is the owner of the Suit property and upon his

2
 representation, the Defendants entered into the said Agreement. The
Copy of the said Agreement dated 3rd June 2015 is annexed to the
Plaint as Exhibit A.
c. The Plaintiffs state that admittedly the said Leave and Licensee
Agreement was renewed on 29th October 2018 for further period of 36
months and copy of the said Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29 th
October 2018 is annexed at Exhibit C of the Plaint.
d. The Defendants states that the Plaintiff has deliberately avoided to
annex or place on record ownership documents of the Suit property to
the Plaint. Further maintenance bill annexed at page no. 12 of the
Plaint is forged and bogus. It is pertinent to note that though in the
Leave and Licensee Agreement, the Plaintiff has claimed his
ownership of the Suit property, the Plaintiff has not annexed any
supporting document to the any of the Leave and License agreement.
Further, in the present Suit also the Plaintiff has deliberately avoided
to annex or place on record ownership documents of the Suit property.
e. The Defendants state that it is pertinent to note that in the year 2019,
the Cooperative Housing Society was registered for the first time and
share certificates were issued for respective Flats of the Building on
01/02/2021. The Defendants states that after registration of
Cooperative Society and issuance share certificate the Plaintiff’s false
claim of ownership came into picture. The Defendants state that after
registration of Society share certificate for Flat No. 42 was issued in
the name of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani. Hereto annexed and
marked as Exhibit 1 is the copy of the Share Certificate no. 11.
f. It is pertinent to note that the said Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani is the
father of the Plaintiff herein and as per the Society record the Flat No.
42 stands in the name of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani. Hereto

3
 annexed and marked as Exhibit 2 – Colly is the copy of the relevant
document of Society record.
g. The Defendants state that as per the Society record there is no specific
document showing that the Suit property being Garage No. 1 is owned
by Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani or has not been allotted to Late
Gulab Vassanmal Advani. Further no separate share certificate is
issued for the Garage No.1.
a. The Defendants state that by taking disadvantage of the situation, the
Plaintiff in spite of knowledge that he is not the owner of the Suit
property executed Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 3rd June 2015
and 29th October 2018 thereby falsely mentioning that he is the owner
of the Suit property. The Defendants state that Leave and Licensee
Agreement dated 3rd June 2015 was renewed with new Leave and
Licensee Agreement dated 29th October 2018.It is patient to note that
the execution and registration of Leave and Licensee agreement by the
Plaintiff was inherently illegal and unauthorized act of the Plaintiff.
b. The Defendants state that upon the expiry of the Leave and Licensee
Agreement dated 29th October 2018, the Plaintiff had given repeated
oral assurance to the Defendants that the said agreement shall be
renewed for the further period of 36 months. The Defendants state that
the said agreement has been expired on 30th September 2021 and the
Defendants are in possession of said premises on the oral assurance
that from 1st October 2021, the said agreement shall be renewed for
further period of 36 months.
c. However, the Defendants understands that after registration of the
Society in the year 2019 and issuance share certificate on 01/02/2021
in favor of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani, family dispute arose in the
family of Plaintiffs and further since the share certificate stands in the

4
 name of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani, the Plaintiff realized that he is
not in position to renew the said agreement.
d. Further, the Plaintiff in Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 3 rd June
2015 and 29th October 2018 has intentionally and deliberately
suppressed that the Flat No. 42 is owned by Late Gulab Vassanmal
Advani and further said both the agreements are executed in the
capacity of owner and not as the legal heir of the Deceased. The
Defendants state that they came to know ownership status of the suit
property after registration of the Society in the year 2019 and issuance
share certificate on 01/02/2021.
e. The Defendants state that since the Leave and Licensee Agreement
dated 29th October 2018 is executed and registered other than the
owner of the property then in that case, the validity of the said
document is under question. The Defendants further state that in the
event of validity of Leave and Licensee Agreement is challenged, the
Plaintiff cannot seek relief under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
1999 or the Presidency Small causes Courts Act.
f. Further, present Suit has been filed in his personal capacity and not as
a legal heir of the Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani. Resultantly on
technical grounds present Suit is not maintainable. Further since the
validity of Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29 th October 2018 is
under challenge as the Plaintiff is not owner of the property, legal
status of the Plaintiff is not covered under the definition of Licensor.
g. The Defendants most humbly submits that present Hon’ble Court does
not have Jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute in hand. further
Since title or ownership of the Plaintiff / Licensor is disputed, present
litigation triable before the Civil Court.
h. The Defendants state that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the Suit
property and further Plaintiff can not claim himself as the Licensor as

5
 the Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29th October 2018 has been
executed and registered by suppressing the facts about ownership of
the suit property.
i. Further the Suit property is not a commercial property. Further suit
property is part of residential property. The Defendants most humbly
submits that the present Hon’ble Court does not have Jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present dispute in hand.
j. The Defendants states that since the Plaintiff is not owner of the suit
property, he has no legal right to invoke any of the clauses of Leave
and Licensee Agreement dated 3rd June 2015 and 29th October 2018
respectively. Resultantly present Suit is also not maintainable.
k. The Defendants state that the Plaintiff is required to prove his
bonafides first and then only the Plaintiff can invoke the clauses of the
said agreement dated 29th October 2018. The Defendants state that as
per the record of the Sunil Co-operative housing Society, the Plaintiff
is not even a member of the society and hence the said agreement
executed and registered between the parties herein is null and void and
technically the agreement has no effect.
l. The Defendants deny that the Defendants are liable to handover
possession of the said premises to the Plaintiff or is liable to bear
penalty clauses as the Plaintiff had given repeated oral assurance with
respect to renewal of the Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29 th
October 2018 for further period of 36 months. The Defendants state
that the said agreement has been expired on 30 th September 2021 and
the Defendants are in possession of said premises on assurance that
from 1st October 2021, the said agreement shall be renewed for further
period of 36 months. The Defendants understand that due to
ownership issues of Plaintiff and family disputes, at present the
Plaintiff is not able to renew the said agreement.

6
m. The Defendants state that due to Plaintiffs assurance of renewal,
Defendants has made substantial investments in her business which is
being run from the suit property. The Defendants state that if
Defendants is asked to vacate the premises abruptly then Defendants
shall suffer substantial and irreparable losses in her business.
n. The Defendants states that substantial expenditure has been incurred
by her on renovation and maintenance of the Suit property. Further the
Defendants has invested heavily in her business which is being run
from the Suit property for last more than 6 years. However, due to
family and title dispute of the Suit property present litigation has taken
place.
o. The Defendants state that if the Plaintiff is having disputes with the
other family members of the original owner of the suit property then
after resolution of dispute the said agreement shall be renewed as per
oral assurances given to Plaintiff.
p. The Defendant NO. 2 denies that she is in default in payment of
licenses fees. The Defendant No. 2 states that during the tenure of the
licenses period it was oral and mutual agreement between the parties
that actual rent shall be reduced by 50% due to pandemic Covid 19.
However, after the registration of Society and issuance share
certificate, the Plaintiff has changed his colors for reasons best known
to him. The Defendants are not liable to pay amount claimed by the
Plaintiff as the calculation of the claimed amount is incorrect and
inflated.
q. The Defendants state that the a reply to Notice dated 18/05/2022 is
given by the Defendants, however the same is suppressed by the
Plaintiffs.
r. Under the circumstances and in view of above, the Defendants
reiterates that the Plaintiff has misrepresented and cheated Defendants

7
 by willingly and voluntarily executing and registering leave and
licenses agreement dated 29 October 2018, wherein the Plaintiff was
aware of the fact that he is not the owner of said premises. The
Defendants reiterate that the Plaintiff should resolve the dispute with
other family members of the original owner of the Suit Property and
then as per the oral assurances given to the Defendants, the said
agreement dated 29 October 2018 should be renewed further period of
36 months.

5. Without prejudice to the above, and in parawise reply, to the Plaint of the

Plaintiff, the Defendant states and submits as under :-

i. With reference to the Para 1 of the Plaint, the Defendant denies that

the Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit property and in order to

support his claim the Plaintiff has not placed on record any

supporting document proving his ownership.

ii. With reference to the Para 2 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has

described the background of the parties and the Defendant reserves

comments as the said paras are standard in nature.

iii. With reference to para No. 3, 4, the Defendant denies the Plaintiffs

contentions and the Defendants further submits that the Plaintiff’s

claim is not maintainable as he is not an owner of the Suit property.

iv. With reference to para No 5 a and b of the Plaint, the Defendants

states that The Plaintiff has made several false and misleading

claims / statements. The Plaintiff is therefore guilty of suggestion

8
 falsi. The Plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with

clean hands and the Plaintiff has suppressed several material facts

while instituting the Suit. It is pertinent to note that the said Late

Gulab Vassanmal Advani is the father of the Plaintiff herein and as

per the Society record the Flat No. 42 stands in the name of Late

Gulab Vassanmal Advani. The Defendants state that as per the

Society record there is no specific document showing that the Suit

property being Garage No. 1 is owned by Late Gulab Vassanmal

Advani or has not been allotted to Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani.

Further no separate share certificate is issued for the Garage No.1.

v. With reference to para No. 5 C to 5 s of the Plaint, the Defendant

denies the allegations made and whatever stated by the Plaintiff is

nothing but concocted story of the Plaintiffs imagination and puts

Plaintiff to strict proof thereof. The Defendants state that by taking

disadvantage of the situation, the Plaintiff in spite of knowledge

that he is not the owner of the Suit property executed Leave and

Licensee Agreement dated 3rd June 2015 and 29th October 2018

thereby falsely mentioning that he is the owner of the Suit

property. It is patient to note that the execution and registration of

Leave and Licensee agreement by the Plaintiff was inherently

illegal and unauthorized act of the Plaintiff. The Defendants state

that Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 3rd June 2015 was

9
 renewed with new Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29 th

October 2018. The Defendants state that upon the expiry of the

Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29th October 2018, the

Plaintiff had given repeated oral assurance to Defendants that the

said agreement shall be renewed for the further period of 36

months. The Defendants state that the said agreement has been

expired on 30th September 2021 and the Defendants are in

possession of said premises on the oral assurance that from 1 st

October 2021, the said agreement shall be renewed for further

period of 36 months. However, the Defendants understands that

after registration of the Society and issuance share certificate in

favor of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani, family dispute arose in the

family of Plaintiffs and further since the share certificate stands in

the name of Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani, the Plaintiff realized

that he is not in position to renew the said agreement. Further, the

Plaintiff in Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 3 rd June 2015 and

29th October 2018 has intentionally and deliberately suppressed

that the Flat No. 42 is owned by Late Gulab Vassanmal Advani and

further said both the agreements are executed in the capacity of

owner and not as the legal heir of the Deceased.

vi. With reference to para No. 6 to 21 of the Plaint, the Defendant

denies and opposes to any sort of relief to the Plaintiff and Plaint

10
lacks the cause of action and facts presented are devoid of merits.

The Defendants most humbly submits that present Hon’ble Court

does not have Jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute in hand.

further Since title or ownership of the Plaintiff / Licensor is

disputed, present litigation triable before the Civil Court. The

Defendants state that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the Suit

property and further Plaintiff can not claim himself as the Licensor

as the Leave and Licensee Agreement dated 29 th October 2018 has

been executed and registered by suppressing the facts about

ownership of the suit property. The Defendants states that since

the Plaintiff is not owner of the suit property, he has no legal right

to invoke any of the clauses of Leave and Licensee Agreement

dated 3rd June 2015 and 29th October 2018 respectively. Resultantly

present Suit is also not maintainable.The Defendants state that the

Plaintiff is required to prove his bonafide first and then only the

Plaintiff can invoke the clauses of the said agreement dated 29th

October 2018. The Defendants state that as per the record of the

Sunil Co-operative housing Society, the Plaintiff is not even a

member of the society and hence the said agreement executed and

registered between the parties herein is null and void and

technically the agreement has no effect.The Defendants deny that

the Defendants are liable to handover possession of the said

11
premises to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had given repeated oral

assurance with respect to renewal of the Leave and Licensee

Agreement dated 29th October 2018 for further period of 36

months. The Defendants state that the said agreement has been

expired on 30th September 2021 and the Defendants are in

possession of said premises on assurance that from 1st October

2021, the said agreement shall be renewed for further period of 36

months. The Defendants understand that due to ownership issues of

Plaintiff and family disputes, at present the Plaintiff is not able to

renew the said agreement.The Defendants state that due to

Plaintiffs assurance of renewal, Defendants has made substantial

investments in her business which is being run from the suit

property. The Defendants state that if Defendants is asked to vacate

the premises abruptly then Defendants shall suffer substantial and

irreparable losses in her business.The Defendants states that

substantial expenditure has been incurred by her on renovation and

maintenance of the Suit property. Further the Defendants has

invested heavily in her business which is being run from the Suit

property for last more than 6 years. However, due to family and

title dispute of the Suit property present litigation has taken place.

The Defendants state that if the Plaintiff is having disputes with the

other family members of the original owner of the suit property

12
 then after resolution of dispute the said agreement shall be renewed

as per oral assurances given to Plaintiff.

vii. The Defendant No. 2 denies that she is in default in payment of

licenses fees. The Defendant No. 2 states that during the tenure of

the licenses period it was oral and mutual agreement between the

parties that actual rent shall be reduced by 50% due to pandemic

Covid 19. However, after the registration of Society and issuance

share certificate, the Plaintiff has changed his colors for reasons

best known to him.

6. The Defendant will rely upon the documents, a list whereof is annexed

hereto.

7. In the circumstances, the Defendant submits that the present suit filed by

the Plaintiff be dismissed with heavy compensatory costs.

Advocate for the Defendant Defendant.

13
 VERIFICATION

I, Mrs. SANGEETA SUDHIR MEHRA, aged years, Occupation:

business, residing at Flat No. 12, 1st Floor, Sunil Apartment, Plot No.
83/C/17,Meera Baug road, Santacruz (west), Mumbai 400054, the
Defendant No. 2 and partner of the Defendant No. 1, do hereby solemnly
declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing paras of the reply are true
to my knowledge except the legal submissions, which is based on
information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai, )

This ________ Day of October, 2022. )

Before me.

Advocate or Defendants

14
 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

BANDRA BRANCH

L.E SUIT NO. ____OF 2022

MR. GAUTAM GULAB ADVANI )....Plaintiff

V/S
1. M/S. Aaina ....Defendant 1
2. Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
….Defendant 2
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE DEFENDANTS WILL

RELY UPON

1. Copy of the Share Certificate no. 11

2. Copy of Agreement for Sale

3. Suit property Record maintained by the Society

15
 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

BANDRA BRANCH

L.E SUIT NO. ____OF 2022

MR. GAUTAM GULAB ADVANI )....Plaintiff

V/S
1. M/S. Aaina ....Defendant 1
2. Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
….Defendant 2

MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE

DEFENDANTS

Flat No. 12, 1st Floor,

Sunil Apartment, Plot No. 83/C/17,
Meera Baug road, Santacruz (west)
Mumbai 400054

16
 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
BANDRA BRANCH
L.E SUIT NO. ____OF 2022
MR. GAUTAM GULAB ADVANI )
Age 42 Years.Occupation- Self Employed, )
Residing at Flat No. 42, 4th Floor, )
Sunil Apartment Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug Road, Santacruz (West), )
Mumbai 400054. )....Plaintiff
V/S
1. M/S. Aaina )
A registered Partnership Firm through )
Its partners Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
Having its registered office at )
Flat no. 12, 1st Floor, )
Sunil apartment, Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug Road, Santacruz (West) )
Mumbai 400054. )....Defendant 1
2. Mrs. Sangeeta Sudhir Mehra )
Aged 57 years, occupation –Business, )
Office at Flat No. 12, 1st Floor, )
Sunil Apartment, Plot No. 83/C/17, )
Meera Baug road, Santacruz (west) )
Mumbai 400054. )….Defendant 2

VAKALATNAMA

17
I, Mrs. SANGEETA SUDHIR MEHRA, the Defendant No. 2 and partner of
the Defendant No. 1, hereby appoint Adv. MILIND S PRABHUNE Advocate
– High Court, Mumbai, to act, appear and plead for us in the above matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have set our hands to this Writing.
This ____ day of ____________ 2022
Mumbai
Appellant
Adv. MILIND S. PRABHUNE
Advocates – High Court
25/B, Maya Mahal, 17th Road
Khar (W), Mumbai -400052

IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

BANDRA BRANCH
L.E SUIT NO. ____OF 2022

MR. GAUTAM GULAB ADVANI

....Plaintiff
V/S
M/S. Aaina & Anr
....Defendants

REPLY TO INTERIM APPLICATION

18
Adv. MILIND S. PRABHUNE
Advocate for Defendants
Advocates – High Court
25/B, Maya Mahal, 17th Road
Khar (W), Mumbai -400052
Con- 9967953589

19