IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI

R.A.E. SUIT NO. 140/198 0F 2014

Shri Jay Narandas Kajaria }

Aged 75 years, Occupation : Business }

JAY Mahal, Office address- 1st floor, 39, }

Kitchen Garden Lane, }

Mumbai: 400002 }…. Plaintiff

Versus

1) Paryas Mahendra Jain }

Aged adult, Occ: not known }

Residing at Jay Mahal, }

Room No. 20, 3rd floor, }

39, Kitchen Graden Lane, }

Mumbai: 400002 }

2) Manorama Vikram Jain }

Aged adult known, Occ: not known }

Residing at Jay Mahal, }

Room No. 20, 3rd floor, }

39, Kitchen Graden Lane, }

Mumbai: 400002 }…. Defendants

REPLY APPLICATION FOR INJUCTION

I, On behalf of Defendant No. 1 Paryas Mahendra Jain and Defendant No. 2 Manorama

Vikram Jain hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. I say that the plaintiff have filed the above suit for eviction of the defendants from

the suit for eviction of defendants from the suit premise viz. premise Room No.

20, 3rd floor, Jay Mahal, 39, Kitchen Garden Lane, Mumbai- 400 002 for

injunction, cost and other reliefs.

2. All the statement and submission made in the plaint be treated as part of this

affidavit.

3. The Plaintiff above named is then owner and landlord of the property known as

Jay Mahal, Office address 1st floor, 39, Kitchen Garden Lane, Mumbai 400 002.

4. The Defendants above named are the tenants in respect of the suit premises and is

let out to Defendants for residential use only.

5. The Defendants are staying in the said premises and are occupants of the said

premises for the last 40 years. The Defendants have always been regular in their

payments for the rent to the owner of the premises i.e. the Plaintiff in the said

Plaint.

6. The Defendants state and submit that all the allegations, statements and averments

made by the Plaintiff in the plain are totally vague and without any support, proof

or evidence and are made only out of malice and do not substantiate any ground

for the ejectment in the suit premises and therefore, they all are hereby

categorically denied.

7. The Defendants in their reply denies all the allegations raised by the Plaintiff in

their application for injunction. The Defendants submit that with a view to harass

these defendants, the Plaintiff though his advocate, raised an uncalled for

allegations in his application for injunction.

8. With reference to Para 6 of the Application for injunction, the defendants states

that they have not contacted with any third party to let out the premises for any

valuable consideration, in the manner alleged and put the Plaintiff to strict proof

thereof. The defendants deny having accrued any personal interest out of the suit

premise for a valuable consideration. The defendants also deny having any

malafide intentions to sell or give the premises or further sub-let the premises.

Further the defendants urge that he does not have any ulterior motive to deprive

the plaintiff of their property right. The defendants submit that the Plaintiff has

made out a fabricated story to suit his convenience, on the flimsy ground in the

manner alleged. The defendants state that the alleged apprehension expressed by

the Plaintiff is false, baseless and vexatious.

9. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as sought. The

defendants deny that grave or any harm and/or prejudice would be caused to the

Plaintiff if the injunction as sought is not granted and/or that the balance of

convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff. On the contrary, the greater hardship will

be caused to the defendants, if they are asked to vacate the suit premises.

10. The defendants further submit that the allegation and grounds made out by the

Plaintiff in the Plaint are baseless, void, not tenable at law and therefore the

Plaintiff is not at all entitled to recover possession of the suit premises, in the

manner alleged.

11. With reference to the prayer clauses, the defendants submit that since the suit as

filed is false, frivolous, vexatious, the same cannot be granted. And the suit be

dismissed with compensatory costs.

Under the above circumstances I therefore pray as under;

a) That as provided under section 36 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, they be

awarded with a compensation against the plaintiff , as this Hon’ble Court deem fit.

b) The allegation and grounds made out by the Plaintiff in the Plaint are baseless,

void, not tenable at law and therefore the Plaintiff is not at all entitled to ad-

interim relief as prayed in the application for injunction by the plaintiff.

Advocate for Defendant Defendant

Verification

We, Mr. Prayas Mahendra Jain aged____ years and Mrs. Manorama Viram Jain

aged____years having address at Room No. 20, 3rd floor, Jay Mahal, 39 Kitchen

Garden Lane, Mumbai 400002, the defendant No. 1 & 2 abovenamed respectively,

do hereby states and declares on solemn affirmation that whatever stated in

forgoing paragraphs of the Reply For Injunction are true to our knowledge and

belief and we believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai }

This day of March 2014 }

Before me

Explained, Interpreted and identified by

Advocates for the Defendants