IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY

L.E.C. SUIT NO. 14 OF 2020

M/s. Bright Enterprises )

Partnership firm having office at )
7/4, Asha Building, Chhaya society )
S.T, Road Chembur Naka, Mumbai- 400071 )
Through Its authorized partner )
Mr. Anil Amarchand Chhadwa )…Plaintiff

Versus

Mrs. Manali Shashikant Gawali )

Aged 36 years, Occupation: service )
The proprietor of Khan pan kitchen )
Having address at Shop no.1,1722/1, )
R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 )
Residing at )
Pratik D-3, Aji Maji Sainik Sanmatra CHS )
R.C. Marg, Collector Colony, Chembur, )
Mumbai- 400074 ).…Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT CUM COUNTER CLAIM ON BEHALF OF

THE DEFENDANT:-

1. The Defendant submit that the suit filed by the Plaintiff

is misconceived and not maintainable according to law.

2. The Defendant state and submit that the present suit

is filed with ulterior motive and the Plaintiff had suppressed
relevant fact and had not approached this hon’ble court with
clean hands therefore this suit deserves to be dismissed with
cost.

3. The Defendant is filing their written statement without

there being given an opportunity to have inspection of the
 documents which are in the custody of the Plaintiff. Inspite
of sending notice to Plaintiff and their advocate to give
inspection and supply the copy of the documents regarding
title of the said land and structure as per the provision of
Code of CPC. Thus, the Defendant leave to amend the
present Written Statement after they are given opportunity to
take inspection and supply the documents as called for.

4. The Suit is required to be dismissed for non-joinder of

the necessary and proper party whose presence is required
for proper adjudication of the present suit.

5. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the

Defendant states that this Court has no jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present suit.

6. The Defendant also state that the suit premises falls in

the slum Area therefore in view of the Provision of the Slum
Act the suit is barred therefore in view of the above two
submission, the Defendant state that preliminary issues be
framed in respect of the maintainability of the suit and
jurisdiction of this Court.

7. The Defendant state that before dealing with the

contents in the Plaint, it is necessary to state actual facts
involved in the present dispute, which are stated as follows
without prejudice: -

a. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant state

defendant was in search of a commercial space for
conducting business of take away food outlet, the plaintiff
herein had represented that the plaintiff is the lawful
owner having right title and interest in the shop no.
bearing no.1 adm. 300sq.ft situated at R.C Marg,
chembur, Mumbai-400074 that Hereinafter for the sake
of brevity referred to as the “Suit Premises”.
b. At the outset and without prejudice, the Defendant states
that defendant said suit premises was finalized by
defendant for conducting of her business KKAN PAN
KITCHEN Hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as
the “Suit Premises”.

c. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant states

that when defendant asked for the documents with
regards to the ownership of suit premises the plaintiff told
the defendant that those documents will be given to
Defendant during registration of leave and license, taking
the words of the plaintiff to be true the defendant herein
had finalized the aforesaid suit premises for 36 months
commencing from 20th February 2019 to 19 th February
2022 on the basis of leave and license on terms and
condition and payment of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two
lakh seventy Thousand only) towards interest free
security deposit and payment of monthly compensation of
Rs. 45000/- (Rupees Forty-five thousand only) for first
term of 12 months and thereafter increase of 10 percent
for each subsequent year.

d. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant states

that believing the representation made by the plaintiff
herein, defendant had entered into registered leave and
license with plaintiff dated 16th March, 2019 under serial
No. KRL-1-3381-2019. Wherein when defendant ask for
the document related to the ownership of said suit
Premises the plaintiff said that the said papers are not
required for the registration of leave and license hence
plaintiff has not carried them along with him and plaintiff
assured that he will be sending the copy of said
ownership document to defendant by tomorrow.

e. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant states

that thereafter after registration, next day the plaintiff
had failed to send any document regarding ownership of
Suit premises as assured by the defendant. And
 thereafter when defendant reminded plaintiff for the said
ownership document of said suit premises the plaintiff by
stating on or other reason had evaded giving the said
document.

f. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant state

that time and again the defendant had requested
theplaintiff for said ownership document as the defendant
wanted to apply to the competent authority for acquiring
licenses for running the said business but time and again
plaintiff failed to provide the said ownership document.

g. the Defendant has carried out renovation in the said premises of

Rs.__________________and spend rs. ___________for preparation of
documents and also registration and payment of stamp duty.

h. The Defendant state that Due to plaintiff’s mischievous

behavior The defendant was unable to apply to the
competent authority procuring licenses for running said
business and hence was never able to start the said
business. Its cause mental agony of rs.
_________________-and also physical harassment of Rs.
______________________________

i. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant state

that thereafter it was learned by defendant through
various RTI that said suit premise was not owned by the
said Plaintiff herein and was encroached and build by the
plaintiff . Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit A-
Colly are the True copies of the RTI Issued by various
Authority.

j. At the outset and without prejudice, The Defendant states

that due to plaintiff’s false and misleading representation
defendant had suffered a huge loss and was unable to
start the said business which also tarnish the image and
goodwill of the Defendant in the society which quantified
for Rs. ______________
8. The parawise reply to the pleading in the Plaint is as
follows:-

a) As per Para No 1 is concerned, the Suit premises is

encroached property, and not a property owned by
plaintiff.

b) As per Para No 2 is concerned, the averments made in

the said Para are true and correct, therefore, no
comments are required.

c) As per Para No 3 is concerned, it is true that the said

leave and license was registered for the said
consideration as stated in para.3 for period of 36
months.

d) As per Para No 4 is concerned, some para of leave and

license are reproduced, the averment made in said
para are true and correct, therefore, no comment are
required.

e) As per Para No 5 is concerned, the Defendant states

that averment from leave and license is made in the
said Para, and whatever state in Para No.5 is true and
correct.

f) As per Para No 6 is concerned, the Defendant deny

that defendant was in occupation of said suit
premises, and the defendant had failed and neglected
to pay monthly Compensation to the plaintiff. The
defendant states that due to plaintiff’s
misrepresentation that plaintiff is the owner of the
said the suit, and the plaintiff herein has all the
document related to the ownership of the said suit
premises the defendant has entered in a agreement
 with the said plaintiff, but after few days the defendant
learned that the suit premises is a encroached
property hence no license can be granted for
conducting the said business, and the said business
had never commenced due to plaintiff false
representation and assurance. Hence there is no
obligation of paying monthly rent. And also defendant
had made a huge investment for commencement of
said business but due to plaintiff false representation
had to suffer huge losses.

g) As per Para No 7 is concerned, the Defendant deny

that, whatever stated in para no.7 and the same is
false the defendant further states that the defendant
had never commenced the said business as the
defendant couldn’t procure sufficient license for
conducting the said business due to lack of document,
so cooking food in the said premises were never done.
In view of this, the Defendant, hereby denies the
contents of the Para No 7 as the same is based upon
the false and fabricated story made out by the Plaintiff
as the plaintiff wanted to evade his obligation of
providing sufficient title document in order to get
licenses and permission from concern department.

h) As per Para No 8 is concerned, the Defendant states

that, defendant had not occupied the said suit
premises due to lack license hence defendant is not
liable to pay the said electricity and water charges.

i) As per Para No 9 is concerned, the Defendant state

that the said share of Rs.6500/- towards the share in
stamp duty fees was paid by the defendant in cash at
time of registration. Hence it is falsely stated that it
was agreed and assured by the defendant that amount
of Rs. 6500/- towards her share shall be paid later on
to the plaintiff alongwith first month of license fee.
j) As per Para No 10 is concerned, the Defendant the
defendant had time and again requested for the title
document but plaintiff time and again evaded there
responsibility of giving the said title document and
hence defendant was unable to commence the said
business and had to suffer huge loss.

k) As per Para No 11 is concerned, the legal Notice issued

by the Advocate of the Plaintiff is totally misconceived
and baseless, therefore, the Defendant deny the
contents of the said legal Notice dated 18 th july,2019
which was not delivered to the defendant.

l) As per Para No 12 is concerned, the Defendant states

that

m) As per Para No 13 is concerned, the Defendant deny

occurrence of any such incident and also defendant
stated that plaintiff had made a false and fabricated
story and filed false complaint with police station as
the plaintiff was unable to abide by the terms and
condition of the Leave and license and want to
disposes defendant with force and with the help of
local police station from the suit premises. The
Plaintiff be put to strict proof in support of the
averments made in the said Para.

n) As per Para No 14 is concerned,

FIR__________________________ and the Defendant
further states that, the defendant had never
commenced the business in the said suit premises and
no non veg food was cooked or distributed from said
premises hence the content of Para. No 14 are denied

o) As per Para No 15 is concerned,

 p) As per para no 16 is concerned
q) As per Para No 17 is concerned,
r) As per Para No 18 is concerned,
s) As per Para No 19 is concerned,
t) As per Para No 20 is concerned, the claim forth for
which already explanation is given and occupation in
the said suit premises was never commenced as the
defendant was unable to procure the necessary license
due to non-receipt of necessary document from
plaintiff hence content and claim in para no. 19 is
denied in toto.

u) As per Para No 21 is concerned, the Defendant deny

that, whatever stated in para no.7 and the same is
false. The Plaintiff be put to strict proof in support of
the averments made in the said Para with regards to
the ownership document of said suit premises.

v) As per Para No 22 to 25 are concerned, those are the

legal submissions made by the Plaintiff, therefore, no
comments are required.

w) As per Para No 26 and 27 is concerned, the said suit

property is govern

x) As per Para No 27 is concerned, the Suit is not

properly valued, as the Plaintiff are seeking for the
possession of the Suit premises without establishing
their rights and without proof of prior possession in
respect of the Suit premises, therefore, the Suit valued
under Section 6(IV)(j) is incorrect.

y) As per Para No 20 is

In view of this and averments made in the above Paras, the present
Suit is required to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
 Defendant

Advocate for the Defendant

Defendant

VERIFICATION

I, Mrs. Manali Shashikant Gawali, Adult, Indian Inhabitant,

Residing at Pratik D-3, Aji Maji Sainik Sanmatra CHS R.C. Marg,
Collector Colony, Chembur, Mumbai- 400074, do hereby solemnly
declare that what is stated in the forgoing paragraph Nos. _______
to ________ is true to the best of my knowledge and what is stated
in the remaining paragraph Nos. _______ to ________ is on
information and I believe the same to be true and correct.
Solemnly declared at Mumbai )
This day ____ day of March, 2021 )

Advocate for the Defendant

Defendant

Before me,
 IN THE COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES AT BOMBAY
L.E.C. SUIT NO. 14 OF 2020

M/s. Bright Enterprises

… Plaintiff
versus
Manali Shashikant Gawali
… Defendants

************************************
WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF DEFENDANT
************************************
Dated this ____ day of March, 2021

HITENDRA D. GANDHI
HEMANT P. GHADIGAONKAR
Advocates for Defendant
Off. & Res:A/3, Varsha
,Sugandha, Amboli, Andheri-
West, Mumbai-400 058
 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY
L.E.C. SUIT NO. 14 OF 2020

M/s. Bright Enterprises … Plaintiff

versus
Manali Shashikant Gawali … Defendants

List of the Documents relied by the Defendant

Advocate for the Defendant