Bombay High Court Imposes 50K Costs On Slum Occupant For Making Claims Contrary To Original Pleadings In Suit Against Developers

The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on a slum occupant who tried to amend a suit against the slum developers seven years after filing it and introduce claims contrary to her original pleadings.

Justice Kamal Khata set aside an order dated September 10, 2018, allowing the amendment to the slum occupant's suit and observed that she was trying to hold onto the transit accommodation despite having sold the allotted permanent alternate premises before filing the suit. Court said:

“It appears that the entire endeavour of the Respondent No. 1 is to continue holding onto the transit accommodation. She has already sold the allotted premises six months prior to the filing of the suit in 2008. This fact, recorded in the Court's Order, is not challenged and thus stands. The Respondent No. 1's action clearly smacks of malfeasance.”

The court allowed a writ petition filed by Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd. challenging the order.

Facts

Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav (original plaintiff) filed a suit in 2008 against Ravi Ashish Builders (the petitioner) and another builder Ashish Developers Ltd. seeking a declaration that a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) dated January 27, 1995, executed by Ashish Developers in her favour was binding on the petitioner Ravi Ashish Developers.

The suit also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing her from her transit accommodation in Kanyapada, Goregaon East.

In the plaint, Yadav pleaded that she was originally in use, occupation, and possession of 'one room' premises. Ravi Ashish Developers in its defence claimed that it had already allotted her a flat in Malad as a permanent alternate accommodation to her original premises.

However, in 2015, Yadav filed a chamber summons to introduce several amendments to the plaint. She claimed to have purchased an additional room on March 1, 1995. She claimed that the flat in Malad was allotted to her by Ashish Developers as a permanent rehab accommodation in respect of this additional room premises by an agreement dated September 27, 2000.

Thus, by the amendment, she sought to claim that Ashish Developers executed two PAAAs with her in respect of two different premises, and she was entitled to another Permanent Alternate Accommodation.

Yadav accused the builders of attempting to forcefully dispossess her from the transit accommodation by disconnecting the electricity supply. The amendments added prayers to the suit for directing the builders to restore the electricity connection and restraining the builders from disturbing Yadav's possession of the transit flat.

The amendment was allowed by the court. Ravi Ashish Builders filed the present writ petition challenging the order allowing the amendment.

The petitioner argued that the amendment deviated from the original pleadings and raised entirely new claims, particularly regarding the acquisition of second premises and the subsequent agreement with Ashish Developers for alternate accommodation. The petitioner contended that the proposed amendment would nullify the defense it raised in its written statement.

Court's Verdict

The court noted that a prior order dated January 13, 2010, in a Notice of Motion by Yadav had recorded the allotment of a Permanent Alternate Accommodation to her instead of her original premises which had been demolished. The said order also noted that she had sold the newly allotted premises to her for Rs. 5,50,000.

The court emphasized that this order proceeded on the understanding that Yadav had originally had only one premises. The court further pointed out that this order had attained finality as there was no challenge against it. The court said that the proposed amendments sought to change this established factual position.

The court opined that the amendments sought to alter fundamental facts of the case and therefore should not be allowed.

It emphasized that Yadav failed to demonstrate why these facts could not have been introduced earlier between 2008 and 2015. It was pointed out that the amendments introduced entirely new facts that were known or should have been known to Yadav even before filing the suit.

Thus the court set aside the order allowing the amendments to the plaint. It said that Yadav, a slum occupant, cannot be expected to compensate huge costs incurred by the builder due to the potential adverse impact on the slum rehabilitation project.

Thus, it ordered Yadav to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the High Court Legal Aid Fund within two weeks.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 1459 of 2019

Case Title – Ravi Ashish Builders Ltd v. Shardadevi Vikramjeet Yadav and Anr.