12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2026 Delta Enterprises ...Applicant Versus Dr. Farid Ahmed Adbul Gaffar Ansari and ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 514 OF 2026 Delta Enterprises ...Applicant Versus Dr. Farid Ahmed Adbul Gaffar Ansari and ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2026 Delta Enterprises ...Applicants Versus Shenaz Farid Ahmed Ansari And Ors …Respondents Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria, a/w Neuty Thakkar and Sanjay Mali, i/b Tushar Goradia, for the Applicant in all. Mr. Rajiv Narula, a/w Tarang J., i/b Jhangiani Narulla & Asso., for the Respondents. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These revision applications are directed against identical orders passed in the Summons for Judgment in three summary suits being, Commercial Summary Suit Nos. 92/2022, 81/2022, 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.10.01 21:13:49 +0530 12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC and 91/2022, whereby, in an almost identical fact situation, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, was persuaded to grant the leave to defend the suits, subject to deposit of the principal amount purportedly due and payable by the applicant- Defendant No.1 to the respondent(s)/plaintiff(s) towards the transit rent agreed to be paid under Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs were tenants in a building, “Mohammed Bux Building”, Byculla, Mumbai. The owners and landlords decided to redevelop the said property and entered into a registered Development Agreement with the defendant No. 1, a partnership firm. The defendant No.1 entered into PAAA on 15th July, 2010 with the plaintiffs in respect of their respective tenements. Under Clause 8 of the said agreement, the defendant No.1- developer agreed to pay to the tenants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of rent for the alternate accommodation till the delivery of possession of the permanent alternate premises in the developed building. The defendant No.1 agreed to complete the construction of the building in 24 months from the date of the commencement certificate, and, in the event of delay, the defendant No. 1 further agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 2/5 12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC 20,000/- per month. The plaintiffs-tenants delivered the possession of their respective tenements to the defendant No. 1 for the purpose of development. 4. Incontrovertibly, the defendant No. 1 failed to develop the project in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs instituted a petition being Writ Petition No.2143/2018, seeking certain reliefs. In the said petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed the defendant No. 1 and its partners to deposit a sum of Rs.50 Crores with the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a unit of MHADA, on or before 15th April, 2019. In the event the defendant No. 1 and its partners failed to show their bona fides and deposit the said amount, the Board was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in furtherance of the show cause notices, including cancellation or withdrawal of the no objection certificate issued to the defendant No. 1. Indisputably, the defendant No. 1 failed to deposit the said amount and, eventually, MHADA cancelled the NOC. The tenants have thereafter instituted the instant suits for recovery of the amount of transit rent on the strength of the PAAAs. 5. Mr. Parsurampuria, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the learned Judge, City Civil Court, failed to 3/5 12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC appreciate that the summary suit in the present form was not maintainable as it did not fall within any of the clauses of Sub- Rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXXVII. Secondly, the claim for transit rent from the date of the execution of the PAAA was clearly barred by the law of limitation. At best, the plaintiffs could lay claim for the transit rent for a period of 3 years preceding the institution of the suits. It was further submitted that since no relief was granted in the above-numbered writ petition by this Court, in regard to the recovery of the transit rent, the suit would be barred by the principles of res judicata. 6. None of the aforesaid submissions deserve any countenance. Incontrovertibly, under clauses 8 and 9 of the PAAA, the defendant No. 1 had unequivocally agreed to pay transit rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the initial period of 24 months, and, in the event of delay, at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, the suit is prima facie based on a written contract covered by sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub- rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXXVII. 7. The ground of limitation, strenuously pressed into service by Mr. Parsurampuria, also does not seem to be of such substance as to warrant an unconditional leave. The liability to pay transit rent was prima faice in the nature of compensation 4/5 12-14-CRA513-2026+.DOC and not strictly a rent within the realm of a landlord-tenant jural relationship and disputes. Moreover, the liability was incurred by the defendant No. 1 to pay the transit rent till the delivery of possession of the permanent alternate premises in the newly developed building. 8. In any event, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on the faith of the representation of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs vacated their tenements and thereby irretrievably altered their possession. Despite an opportunity granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.2143/2018 to show their bona fide to develop the property and abide by their contractual and statutory obligations by depositing the amount of Rs.50,00,00,000/-, the defendant No.1 failed to comply with the said order. Prima facie, the defendant No.1 has not raised a substantial defence. 9. In these circumstances, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, was fully justified in granting leave to defend the suit subject to the condition of the deposit of the claim amount. 10. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. 11. The revision applications stand dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 5/5