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 Honble 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 adinterim 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