1

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL COURT AT

BOMBAY 4TH COURT, AT MUMBAI
SUIT NO. 578 OF 2014.

NIKITA PRAVIN THAKKAR )

Age : 36 years, Occu. : Service, )
Residing at 19, Ishcchayya Co.operative )
Hsg. Soc. Ltd. N.S. Road, Mulund (West), )
Mumbai – 400 080. ) Plaintiff .

Vs.

1) DEEPAK GOSAR )
Director of Tridev Realty and )
Construction Pvt. Ltd. )
Residing at 28/29, Nirmal Galaxy, )
Next to Deep Mandir, Mulund (W), )
Mumbai – 4400 080 )

2) Tridevi Realty & Constructions )

Pvt. Ltd. )
27, Nirmal Galaxy, L.B.S. Marg )
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 )

3) Ischayya Co.Op. Hsg.Society Ltd. )

1
 2

822, N.S. Road, Mulund (West) )

Mumbai – 400 080 )

4) Commissioner of Municipal )
Corporation )
Mahanagar Palika, Mumbai )

5) The Assit. Municipal Commissioner, )

T Ward, Lala Devidayal Road, )
Mulund (West), Mumbai- 400080 )

6) The Senior Inspector of Police ):

Mulund Police Station, )

7) Commissioner of Police )
Head Quarter, Crawford Market )
Mumbai. ) .. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF

NIKITA PRAVIN THAKKAR U/O 18 R4 OF THE

2
 3

CPC IN LIEU OF EVIDENCE.

I, Nikita Pravin Thakkar, Aged about 36 years, Indian

Inhabitant, the Plaintiff abovenamed residing at 19
Ischayya Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd., N.S. road,
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080, presently residing at
Prabhat Building A-10, 2nd Floor, Tambe Nagar, S. N.
Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 4400 080 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:-

1) I say that I am the Plaintiff in the above matter.

The present suit has been filed by me , and I am
filing this Affidavit of Evidence on my behalf. I
am conversant with facts and circumstances of
the case and I am able and competent to depose
the same.

2) I say that the Defendant No.1, Deepak Gosar , is

the Director of Defendant No.2 i.e Tridev Realty
and Constructions, who is the Builder and
currently carrying on the work of re- development
of the Defendant No.3 ie. Ischhaya Co-Operative
Housing Society . The Defendant No.3 is the
Society who have entrusted the re-development

3
 4

and constructions work of the Defendant No.3 to

the Defendant No.1 and 2, the Defendant No.4, is
the BMC (T- Ward) who have given approval to
the Defendant No.2 for the project and also
demolish my suit premises. The Defendant No.5,
is the Mulund Police Station with whom I have
exchanged several correspondences regarding the
activities of Defendant No.1 to 3 but have not
taken any action against the Defendant No.1 to 3.
The Defendant No.7 Commissioner of police who
is a formal party in the suit.

3) I say that I am the member occupant along with

my mother residing in the suit premises and that
the suit premises was a outhouse situated
independently in the society and were issued a
share certificate by the society the Defendants No
3. I say that the Defendant No 3 appointed the
Defendant No 1 as the developer to redevelop the
Society of which Iam a member too. That
unilaterally without informing by the Defendant
No 3 authorized the Defendant No .1, to
redevelop the plot of the society without
considering my rights and having a independent
structure in the plot of land of the Defendant No
3.

4
 5

4) I say that my structure was independent

outhouse /structure solely occupied by me and my
aged senior citizen mother who is ailing. I say
that my mother and myself were solely occupying
the said out house/ structure. I say that the suit
premises was occupied by me admeasuring 278
sq. Ft. I say that I was enjoying the suit premises
with my aged mother aged 67 years. I say that in
view of the fact that I was not informed about the
redevelopment, I issued a Notice to Defendant
No.1, 2 and 3 on 20th March 2014 which is
Exhibit 13. The said Notice was issued by my
Advocate, Vinod C. Sampat on my instructions.
The Notice was issued to the Defendant No.1, 2,
5, 7 and others. The contents of the same are true
and correct.

5) I had written several letters to the Defendant No.6

which are marked as Exhibits. The contents of the
same are true and correct.

6) The Defendant No.5 is the Mulund Police Station

and Defendant No. 7 with whom several
correspondence regarding the activities of
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 which is marked as Exhibit

5
 6

– 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 34 but have
not taken any action against the Defendant Nos. 1
to 3.

7) The Defendant No.7 Commissioner of Police who

is a formal party in the suit was also served
notices which are marked as Exhibit 19, 21, 22,
23, 25 and 26. The contents of the same are true
and correct.

8) I say that the Defendant No.3 decided to go for re-

development of the Defendant No.3 since I was
also a member of the Defendant No.3. A notice
should have been served on me to take consent
however I was never considered by the Defendant
No.3 for the re-development of the Defendant
No.3 and I got the news of redevelopment only
when tin sheds were put around the compound
walls of the Defendant No.3. I was kept in the
dark and was never called for any Special General
Body Meeting or for that matter any other meeting
or meetings which are generally held before any
re-development project of a Society is undertaken.

9) I say that after the main building of the Defendant

6
 7

No.3 was demolished, the Defendant No.1 and 2

taking advantage of old mother and myself being
ladies started harassing and threatening constantly
by sending goondas at the suit premises. I lodged
several police complaints with the Defendant
No.5,the Mulund Police Station, but the same
were ignored by the Defendant No.5 on the
instructions of the Defendant No. 1 & 3 and action
was never taken against the Defendant Nos. 1 and
2 the Defendant No.3 for the reasons best known
to the Defendant No.5.

10) I say that I have addressed various

communication to the Defendant No. 4 and 6.
The documents are marked as Exhibit 14, 16, 17,
18, 21, 22, 23 and 25. The contents of the same
are true and correct.

11) I say that Defendant No.1 and 2, thereafter dug the

pathway and the Plaintiff was unable to go in nor
come out of suit premises in the direction of the
main entrance ,I immediately informed the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in writing but no action
was taken by the Defendant No.1 and 2. Marked
as Exhibit 20 ,is the copy of the letter dated
15.04.2014 addressed by the Plaintiff to the

7
 8

Defendant No.1 and 2 .

12) The Senior Inspector of Police issued a letter to

the Defendant No.4, the Asst. Municipal
Commissioner on 11.07.2014, P -22, stating that
the suit premises is in dangerous condition at the
same time, the Defendant No.5 gave a letter to me
Exhibit 17 stating that the builder will repair the
pathway and the damaged suit premises within 4
to 5 days. I say that the Defendant No.5 is stating
on one hand the Defendant No.5 is assuring me
that the Defendant No.1 and 2 will repair the
pathway within 3 to 4 days and on the other hand,
the Defendant No.5 is issuing a letter to demolish
the suit premises this clearly shows the malafide
intention of the Defendant No.5 to blackmail the
Plaintiff and give license to the Defendant No.4 to
demolish the suit premises .

13) On the same night, Police Inspector, Mr.

Phulsingh Pawar of the Defendant No.5
accompanied with about 10 to 12 police, forced
me and my old mother out of the suit premises
and forced us to stay in the hotel and gave us false

8
 9

assurances verbally as well as in writing that the

Defendant No.1 and 2 has promised the Defendant
No.5 that the Defendant No.1 and 2 will repair
the pathway as well as the suit premises in 5 days
time. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit
“17” , the copy of the said letter dated
11.07.2014.Defendant No. 1 and 2 with the help
of the Defendant No.5 forcefully kept me and my
old mother in Hotel Shilpa Residency for about 15
days during this period, the Defendant No. 1 and 2
hatched a conspiracy of demolishing the suit
premises in connivance with the Defendant No.4
and the Defendant No.5.

14) I say that again after 5 days, when I again went to

the Defendant No.5 to enquire why the pathway
and the suit premises was not repaired as per the
assurance given by the Defendant No. 1 and 2 to
the Defendant no.5. The Defendant No.5 replied
to me not worry and that repair work will be done
very soon, the Defendant No.5 further informed
me that the Defendant No.1 and 2 requires
another 10 days time for the repairs after which
every thing will be in order, but even after the 10
days period were over, no repair work was carried
out by the Defendant No.1 and 2 and I came to

9
 10

know the true motive of the Defendant No.1 and 2

and the Defendant No.5 for shifting the me and
my old mother in the Hotel. The Defendant No.4,
gave me a short notice which was pasted on the
wall of the suit premises dated 26.07.2014 stating
that the suit premises will be demolished by the
Defendant No.4 on 30.07.2014. Exhibit 31, is the
copy of the said notice dated 26.07.2014 issued by
the Defendant no.4.

15) The Senior Inspector of Police issued a letter to

the Defendant No.4 on 11.07.2014, stating that
the suit premises is in dangerous condition at the
same time, the Defendant No.5 gave a letter to the
Plaintiff stating that the Defendant No.1 and 2 will
repair the pathway and the damaged suit premises
within 4 to 5 days. On seeing the notice stuck on
the suit premises, I immediately proceeded to the
office of the Defendant No.4 Exhibit 32 to inform
the Defendant No.4 regarding the notice of
demolition. I say that the Defendant No.4 did not
keep up to the promises and assurances given by
the Defendant No.4 to me and went ahead with
the demolition of the suit premises. in between
Sunday and Id holidays and the suit premises was

10
 11

demolished within a period of 3 days. Thus,

violating Defendant No.4 own promises and
assurances given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant
No.4.

16) The Defendant No.4 has violated the guidelines

laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case
of M.C.G.M. v/s State of Maharashtra by an order
dated 23.06.2014. Thus, the Defendant No.4 has
committed Contempt of the orders of the
Honourable High Court,Bombay. The guideline
clearly states that 7 days’ notice is required to be
given by BMC for any demolition to be carried
out by the B.M.C, copy of the Order dated
23.06.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court,
Bombay giving guidelines to the BMC is on
record and part of the compilation at item no P 26.
I say that our structure the outhouse did not fall in
C-3 category and the same was demolished in 3
days at the behest of the Defendant No 1 a
developer on a Sunday thus violating the Bombay
High Court order and Defendant No.4 has
committed contempt of court by not adhering to
the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court,
Bombay that a 7 days notice period was to be
followed .

11
 12

17) I say that I had given in writing and verbally

informed the Defendant No.4 that I had filed
present suit against the Defendant No.1 , 2 and
the Defendant No.4 on 11th February 2014 in the
City Civil Court, Bombay, being suit No. 578 of
2014 and that the Defendant No.4 should not take
any action to demolish the suit premises as I was
seeking relief against the Defendant No1 and 2
and Defendant No.4, but inspite of informing the
Defendant No.4 they have gone ahead with the
demolition of the suit premises without the
Plaintiff being given an opportunity to seek
justice. Exhibit 32 is the copy of the letter dated
28.07.2014 addressed to Defendant No.4. The
contents of the letter are true and correct.

18) The Committee Members of the Defendant No.3

are not even members of the Society and the Share
Certificate is not in their name in that case how
they can be the Committee Members of the
Defendant No.3 by holding post and how they can
sign the documents pertaining to the re-
development of the Defendant No.3. That itself is
a Fraud and illegality.

12
 13

19) I say that I had issued a notice dated 20.03.2014,

to the Defendant Nos. 1,2, 5 and 7 and also to the
members of the Defendant No.3, calling upon
them to give explanations to the various issues
raised by me in the said notice, Exhibit 13, is the
copy of the said notice dated 20.03.2014.
although the notices were served there was no
response from the Defendants. The contents of the
same are true and correct and on my instructions.

20) I say that the Government had issued directives

for re-development of the building of Society
some of the important directives are as under:
(i) Requisition of Special General Body Meting for
redevelopment of Society building;
(ii) To accept in writing suggestions from Members
relating to re-development;
(iii) Providing minutes of the meeting to all members;

(iv) Appointment of Architect/Project Management

Committee;
(v) Action to be taken on receipt of re-development project
report;
(vi) Preparing list of Bid received;

(vii) Selection of developers;

13
 14

(viii) Agreement to be entered with the developer and Points

Nos. (1) to (13) contained in the directives for re-
development of buildings of Co-op. Hsg. Societies will
also be included in the agreements. Copy of the
directives of the Govt. of Maharashtra dated
03.01.2009, is Exhibit 33 to the compilation of
documents.

17.I say that gross injustice is done to me and my mother

and my friends and well-wisher Ms. Meena Singh who
has witnessed the atrocity by the Defendants and more
particularly No.4 and the Defendant No.5
administration by demolishing the suit premises
forcefully and making me roofless, whereby, the
Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 has reaped the benefits of re-
development without following the due process of law
by using their muscle powers, money and influence
and in connivance with the Defendant No.4 and the
Defendant No.5 they hatched a plan to demolish the
suit premises and succeeded in their plans to demolish
the suit premises and to evict the Plaintiff from the
Defendant No.3.

18.I say that after the demolishing of the suit premises,

my household items and other things from the suit
premises were dumped outside into the open and some
of my things got damaged/lost as a result, I was put to

14
 15

loss. I lodged a police complaint with the Defendant

No.5 regarding Plaintiff’s missing items/things from
the suit premises. Exhibit “34” is the copy of the
letter dated 09.08.2014 addressed by me to the
Defendant No.5 along with photographs of the same.

19.I say that Iam entitled to my permanent

accommodation due in lieu of my premises or in the
alternative, the Defendant 1 and 2 be ordered to pay
compensation to me by way of damages which I have
suffered on account of the illegal demolition of the
suit premises in terms of prayer (b) and (c).

20.I say that having regards to what is stated by me in the

Plaint and having regards to what is stated
hereinabove, heavy compensation should be awarded /
ordered in my favour for the loss incurred by me by
the actions of the Defendants Nos. 1 ,2& 3.

21.In view of the aforesaid I say that the present suit

ought to be decreed in my favour.

(Nikita Pravin Thakkar).

Plaintiff

( Ramson Dias )

15
 16

Advocate for the Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I Nikita Pravin Thakkar, aged about 36 years,

residing at 19, Ishchayya Co-operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,
N.S. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 and
presently residing at Prabhat Building A-10, 2nd floor,
Tambe Nagar, S.N. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai –
400080, do hereby states that whatever stated by me in
paragraphs 1 to 21 of this Affidavit of Evidence is true
to my knowledge and belief and I believe the same to
true and except legal submission which are under legal
advice and I believe them to be true and correct .

Solemnly affirmed at
Mumbai
)
On this 30th day of
April,2024
)

Identified by me;

(Nikita Pravin Thakkar)

Plaintiff

16
 17

( Ramson Dias )
Advocate for the Plaintiff

Before Me.

17
 18

IN THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL

COURT AT BOMBAY
4th COURT, AT MUMBAI

Suit NO. 578 of 2014

Ms. Nikita P. Thakkar ..Plaintiff

Vs.

Mr. Deepak Gosar & Ors. ..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF EVIDENCE OF

THE PLAINTIFF

Dated this 30thday of April, 2024.

Mr. Ramson Dias

Advocate for the Plaintiff

18