Sanman Prakash Gaonkar vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

(a) The Owner of the Tenement in which the Petitioner was residing claiming a tenancy right, will place the Petitioner notionally back into the position of a Tenant (the premises have already been demolished and re-development is to be undertaken).

¶43

(b) The Owner, as well as the Petitioner, agree to a PAAA Agreement between the Developer and the Owner and/or the Tenant, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in this case. Such a PAAA Agreement would bind both these parties, meaning the Owner as well as the Tenant, irrespective of having been signed by either of them.

¶44

(c) The Owner agrees to allow the Tenant to receive the temporary transit rent/compensation, which would be subject to the dispute between the Owner and the Tenant.

¶45

(d) The dispute between the Owner and the Petitioner-Tenant, as well as the Tenant receiving the transit rent, shall be subject to the decision in the litigation between the two, if it is already instituted or is likely to be instituted.

¶46

3 of 5

¶47

Kartikeya

¶48

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

¶49

(e) The Corporation would proceed on the afore-stated premises/arrangement, and the re-development of the Project would take shape.

¶50

(f) The Developer makes a statement, on instructions, that, considering the dispute between the Owner and the PetitionerTenant, one accommodation in the re-developed property, which is tentatively allocated a number as Flat No.303, shall be kept secured, and until the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is resolved, the Developer would not create any third-party interest in or part with possession of, the said flat, since either of these two persons is likely to receive the said tenement.

¶51

(g) After the building is completed and it receives OC, the said Flat No.303 would entail property taxes and maintenance charges. If the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is not resolved in any Court of law until then, the Tenant who would be occupying the said flat temporarily, would be liable to pay all these charges without any reservation or objection . If he opposes any such payment, we grant liberty to the Authorities to initiate steps for recovery of all these charges as arrears of land revenue under the MLR Code.

¶52

Kartikeya 4 of 5

¶53

905-WP-3893-2025.odt

¶54

(h) The transit rent already paid by the Developer to the Owner would also be a subject of dispute between the Owner and the Tenant. The issue of unpaid transit rent has been kept open for the Competent Court to deal with when the dispute between the Petitioner-Tenant and the Owner is taken to fruition, from the period from August 2025 to 28^th February 2026.

¶55

With the above observations and directions, this Petition is disposed off .

¶56

Pending Interim Applications stands disposed off .

¶57

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶58

5 of 5

¶59

Kartikeya

Sanman Prakash Gaonkar v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

Sanman Prakash Gaonkar v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaurav Anil Kaushik vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader

Crestline Developer Llp., vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Naresh Pundalik Koli vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Sanjay Jaywantrai Mehta vs Hiteshkumar B. Palan

Monica Paresh Patel vs the Union of India

Gaurav R. Mittal vs the Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Legal Affairs (Brnach Secretariat)