ORDER : A.K. Menon, J. 1. By an order of even date, ad-interim reliefs were refused for reasons recorded separately. The reasons are given below. 2. The plaintiff seeks the following reliefs; (i) a declaration that the Transfer of Tenancy Agreement dated 30 July, 2020 ("TTA"-Exhibit-F to the plaint) between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant is valid, subsisting, binding and enforceable against the 1 defendant. (ii) Specific performance of TTA by accepting Rs. 3 crores as consideration and by attending the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances for execution and registration of the TTA. In the alternative, an order and decree appointing a Registrar of this court or other fit and proper person to execute and register the TTA. (iii) Damages amounting to Rs. 6.11 crores on account of mental agony, harassment and loss of good name and reputation of the plaintiff. (iv) In the interregnum, a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from creating any third party rights in relation to the suit premises and against obstructing ingress and egress of the plaintiff to the suit premises and inter alia to use the premises for storing merchandise. 3. At this ad-interim stage, Ms. Iyer learned Senior Advocate appearing in support states that she seeks relief in terms of prayer clauses A(i), A(ii) and A(iii). Viz. three temporary injunctions restraining the defendants and his family members from creating third party rights in the suit premises, from obstructing the plaintiff's ingress and egress to and from the suit premises and restraining the defendant No. 1 and his servants, agents and family members from obstructing the plaintiff from storing merchandise in the suit premises. The facts which lead to the present suit are briefly set out below. 4. The suit premises is commercial shop described as Shop A on the ground floor of a building at Vithalwadi, Shaikh Memon Street, Mumbai - 400 002 admeasuring about 319 sq.ft. carpet area with mezzanine and a toilet appurtenant thereto. The 1st defendant is said to be a statutory tenant in respect of the suit premises; the 2nd defendant is the land-lady of the building housing the suit premises; the 3rd defendant is the Senior Inspector of Police, L.T. Marg Police Station. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are formal parties and no relief is sought against them. 5. According to Ms. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are formal parties and no relief is sought against them. 5. According to Ms. Iyer, the plaintiff being in search of shop premises in Vithalwadi area was approached by one Supreme Singh Indrajeet Chaddha, on behalf of the 1st defendant, recommending the suit premises as being suitable for the plaintiff's business and that defendant No. 1 was ready and willing to transfer tenancy rights in respect of the said shop premises. The plaintiff claims that the said Chaddha represented to him that defendant No. 2 had agreed to the transfer of tenancy on payment of proportionate consideration. The plaintiff claims to have inspected the premises along with Mr. Chaddha and in the presence of the 1st defendant. The premises were found suitable and negotiations allegedly took place between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and terms were agreed upon. Defendant No. 1 allegedly agreed to pay consideration to defendant No. 2 out of the consideration payable by the plaintiff to him. 6. Ms. Iyer submitted that on 12 December, 2000, the earlier tenant one Setpal informed the then landlord, (late husband of the 2nd defendant), that Setpal had transferred the tenancy in respect of the suit premises Shop A, being part of a larger shop, jointly in favour of one Dwarkadas Tulsiani and the 1st defendant. Shop B was to be let in the names of Dwarkadas Tulsiani and the 1st defendant's brother Deepak Dwarkadas Tulsiani. In this manner, Dwarkadas Tulsiani is said to have secured notional bifurcation of the shops so that the benefit of the tenancy would therefore be available to both his sons - the 1 defendant and his brother - Deepak. Defendant No. 1 is said to have handed over copies of some rent receipts to the plaintiff during these negotiations and reliance was placed on those. 7. Ms. Iyer submitted that on 29 July, 2020 and on 30 July, 2020, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 executed various documents. According to Ms. Iyer, the consideration payable for transfer of tenancy was fixed at Rs. 3.11 crores, out of which the 1 defendant apparently promised to pay partly in cash and by cheques. The plaintiff issued and the defendant No. 1 accepted Rs. 11 lakhs in cash towards payment of the consideration in respect of the transfer of the shop. According to Ms. Iyer, the consideration payable for transfer of tenancy was fixed at Rs. 3.11 crores, out of which the 1 defendant apparently promised to pay partly in cash and by cheques. The plaintiff issued and the defendant No. 1 accepted Rs. 11 lakhs in cash towards payment of the consideration in respect of the transfer of the shop. Further amounts were allegedly agreed to be paid towards the 1 defendant's interest (presumably the father's "share") in the adjoining premises, namely, the other half of the larger shop premises described as Shop B. 8. Ms. Iyer contended that on 29 July, 2020, the 1st defendant called upon the plaintiff to remain present at the suit premises and complete the transaction by executing the TTA on 30 July, 2020. These submissions of Ms. Iyer are based on Exhibit-F and the WhatsApp exchange between the parties. Ms. Iyer relied upon Exhibit-E, Exhibit-F, Exhibit-G and Exhibit-H in support of her contention that a payment receipt was issued by the 1 defendant for Rs. 3.11 crores. Thereupon, the TTA came to be executed between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 put the plaintiff in possession of the suit premises. Ms. Iyer relied upon a WhatsApp message allegedly from defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff stating that physical possession of the suit premises had been given to the plaintiff. A similar message is also said to have been sent by the son of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff by WhatsApp. Reliance is placed on these messages. 9. On the same day, the plaintiff is said to have affixed a possession notice on the suit premises in the presence of 1 defendant's brother Deepak Tulsiani and nephew one Nishant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that a photograph taken during the completion of the transaction was shared by the Dixit defendant No. 1 himself. Thereupon, the plaintiff is believed to have put his locks on the suit premises. 10. On 1 August, 2020, the plaintiff apparently applied for various licenses and permits and sought to register his business address as that of the shop premises and claims to have accepted delivery of goods pursuant to orders placed on 31 March, 2020 at the suit premises. 10. On 1 August, 2020, the plaintiff apparently applied for various licenses and permits and sought to register his business address as that of the shop premises and claims to have accepted delivery of goods pursuant to orders placed on 31 March, 2020 at the suit premises. On 2 August, 2020, it is contended that 1 defendant and his brother Deepak appears to have reached some understanding as a result of which the 1st defendant has so sought to renege on the agreement to transfer the suit premises to the plaintiff. It is in these circumstances that on 14 August, 2020, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance. 11. In support of her contention that the plaintiff is in possession of the premises, Ms. Iyer relied upon the TTA at Exhibit-F; document marked Exhibit-18, which contains some screenshots of what is stated to be WhatsApp messages on the mobile phone of the plaintiff; Exhibit-G, which is titled 'Transfer of Possession Letter of Shop'* (*sic). This document is stated to be signed by the defendant No. 1 in the presence of two witnesses. The document at Exhibit-G consists of two parts; the first part is titled as above and the second part is titled as "To Whosoever This May Concern, Transfer of Possession Letter of Shop"* (* sic). The defendant No. 1 would submit that this is a forged document. The defendant No. 1 would also contend that these are not the signatures of the 1 defendant at all, but are forgeries. 12. Ms. Iyer invited my attention to a list of dates in which the background to the suit transaction, including negotiations held between 13 May 2019 and 6 August, 2020, are set out. On 6 August, 2020, it is contended, that the plaintiff spoke to one Kaushal, who is said to be the co-landlord of the said premises and the said Kaushal confirmed that the tenancy in respect of Shop A would be transferred to the plaintiff provided a transfer fee was paid. Ms. Iyer also relied upon the documents marked Exhibit-H, Exhibit-I, Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4, Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7, all of which are photographs apparently taken on a mobile phone showing certain persons seated within certain premises and bending over as if to affix locks on a shutter apparently from within. Ms. Ms. Iyer also relied upon the documents marked Exhibit-H, Exhibit-I, Exhibit-3, Exhibit-4, Exhibit-6 and Exhibit-7, all of which are photographs apparently taken on a mobile phone showing certain persons seated within certain premises and bending over as if to affix locks on a shutter apparently from within. Ms. Iyer relied upon extracts of relevant pages of itemized mobile telephone bills in support of her contention that at item No. 45 and item No. 243 in the said itemized bill, the telephone number appearing is that of the landlord and the conversation was a lengthy one indicating that the parties discussed and agreed to the transfer of tenancy. As far as the identity of the shop premises is concerned, Ms. Iyer submitted that the consideration for Shop A was fixed at Rs. 3.11 crores. It is sought to be described as a bottom half. Whereas, for Shop B, a sum of Rs. 1.11 crores was agreed to be paid. Ms. Iyer therefor submitted that the plaintiff's possession and access to the Shop "A" be protected. No other aspect was canvassed in support of the plaintiff's application. 13. Mr. Memon, who appears for the 1 defendant, meanwhile submitted that the plaintiff is guilty of trespass. The entire transaction was bogus. After the parents of the 1 defendant had passed away, there has been no partition. The father ran a jewellery business from a shop which admeasures about 638 sq.ft. It was later shown as two separate premises in-order to provide for the defendant No. 1 and his brother. Disputes have since arisen after the demise of the father of the 1 defendant and the brothers have been unable to resolve' these disputes. It is in this background that the documents have been forged, including the TTA. My attention is invited to the fact that the stamp-paper, upon which the TTA has been allegedly executed, which is itself a giveaway inasmuch the purpose for which a stamp-paper has been purchased is required to be provided in the relevant column overleaf and in this behalf on the second page of Exhibit-F, the purpose clearly mentions the alphabets "BG" indicating that it was purchased for the purposes of a bank guarantee. Mr. Memon therefore mentions this as one of the factors that must be taken into consideration. 14. Mr. Mr. Memon therefore mentions this as one of the factors that must be taken into consideration. 14. Mr. Memon also sought to oppose the application on the basis that the document titled 'Transfer of Tenancy Agreement' is not stamped in accordance with law. That TTA would be required to be stamped as a lease and the stamp-duty not having paid, the document is not admissible in evidence. Furthermore, he contended that no part of the amount of Rs. 3.11 crores has ever been paid. Inviting my attention to Exhibit-5, to which Ms. Iyer made reference, Mr. Memon submitted that the amount has not been paid. No money has passed hands and that the question of any transfer having taken effect does not arise. 15. Ms. Iyer protested that that the opposition by Mr. Memon was not entirely based on merit because there have been disputes between the plaintiff and Mr. Memon and his family members. My attention was invited to Exhibit "1" to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the applicant which reveals consent terms filed as between the plaintiff and his family member and the 1 defendant's Advocate and his family members. I do not find reference to these disputes of any relevance. 16. On behalf of the 2nd defendant, Mr. Parikh, learned counsel relied upon an affidavit of one Meena D. Shroff dated 16 September, 2020, wherein it is clearly stated that apart from the 2nd defendant, there are three other legal heirs. There are multiple persons who are entitled to the ownership of the building housing the shop premises. Neither of the plaintiff nor defendant No. 1 had applied to the landlord of the legal heirs for the permission to transfer the tenancy. Since the rights in the building would devolve on all the heirs, unless specific consent was obtained from the heirs, there was no question of any transfer taking effect. Merely relying on a telephone conversation with the son of the landlady would not in any event entitle the 1 defendant to transfer tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. He therefore disputed the transaction and submitted that no case is made out for grant of any relief. 17. I have heard the learned counsel at length. Merely relying on a telephone conversation with the son of the landlady would not in any event entitle the 1 defendant to transfer tenancy in favour of the plaintiff. He therefore disputed the transaction and submitted that no case is made out for grant of any relief. 17. I have heard the learned counsel at length. It is the plaintiff's case that on 31 July, 2020, the plaintiff welcomed his business associates and friends to the suit premises and on that date, the 1 defendant's brother also offered to sell shop B for a sum of Rs. 6 crores. Photographs are being relied upon in support of this contention. The plaintiff contends that his associate one Mohit Astir was present in the suit premises when the plaintiff affixed six locks from inside the suit premises. In addition, the plaintiff's brother's relatives such as a son, brother Nishant and brother-in-law Gulab Mulani were also said to be present when the plaintiff put six locks on the premises. On the same date, the plaintiff is alleged to have placed orders for supplies of merchandise at the suit premises on the following day. On 1 August, 2020, the plaintiff is alleged to have applied for licenses, including applications for GST registration, applying for a landline phone connection and a Gumasta license from the BMC. Invoices for supplies of merchandise to the plaintiff are sought to be relied upon as well. On that date, it appears that the police prevented the plaintiff's employee from entering the shop premises and this resulted in friction between the parties. 18. Exhibit-F to the plaint is a copy of the TTA allegedly executed by and between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff described as proprietor of one Jai Ambe and Ganesh Exports. After setting out in the recitals the fact that the building was owned by one Dilipkumar Natwarlal Shroff, it is stated that Shops A and B were initially occupied by the family members of Hemandas Shewaram Setpal, who expired in January, 1977. His heirs, who are said to have become tenants, had thereafter transferred the tenancy to the defendant No. 1's father, who got the shop divided into two parts; shop A and shop B as aforesaid. Ms. His heirs, who are said to have become tenants, had thereafter transferred the tenancy to the defendant No. 1's father, who got the shop divided into two parts; shop A and shop B as aforesaid. Ms. Iyer had submitted that during the negotiations for transfer of the tenancy, the parties have also prepared a draft of the tripartite tenancy transfer agreement between the landlord, the 1 defendant and the plaintiff. Contents thereof have been relied upon in support of the plaintiff's case. 19. In the midst of the submissions, I enquired of Ms. Iyer whether the tripartite tenancy transfer agreement had been executed by the landlord, to which she submitted that it has not yet been executed. I further queried Ms. Iyer whether the draft of the tenancy transfer agreement had been approved by the landlord, to which Ms. Iyer relied upon the telephone conversation the landlady's son, the said Kaushal, is said to have had with the plaintiff. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that transfer of tenancy has not taken effect. Assuming a suit for specific performance of the TTA is maintainable, it is obvious that without the consent of the landlord, no transfer of tenancy can ever take place. Ms. Iyer however submitted that it is not necessary to have the landlord as a party-defendant in the suit since she was seeking specific performance of the agreement that the plaintiff had with the defendant No. 1 at this point in time and the plaintiff being put in possession, the plaintiff was entitled to enter upon and remain upon the premises. 20. I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. His case of possession is sought to be based on various acts by defendant No. 1 and his brother, which is not convincing. In fact, as stated earlier, the plaint and exhibits contain vague statements and is a hotchpotch of facts. Even the documents that are sought to be relied upon do not reflect the transaction. 21. There may be substance in the contention that the signature of the 1 defendant has been forged. In this respect, I have had occasion to peruse the copy of the agreement of tenancy dated 12 December 2000, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-B to the affidavit-in-reply of Meena Shroff defendant No. 2. 21. There may be substance in the contention that the signature of the 1 defendant has been forged. In this respect, I have had occasion to peruse the copy of the agreement of tenancy dated 12 December 2000, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-B to the affidavit-in-reply of Meena Shroff defendant No. 2. This agreement is between Dilipkumar Natwarlal Shroff - the original landlord and Mr. Dwarkadas Chandumal Tulsiani and Rajesh Dwarkadas Tulsiani-the defendant No. 1. The scrutiny of that document, which appears to be a registered agreement, revealed that entire shop premises No. A is admeasuring 638 sq.ft. Tenancy is sought to be created in respect of a portion admeasuring 319 sq.ft. The signature of defendant No. 1 thereon appears different from the alleged signature on the TTA. Furthermore under clause 20 of the agreement, tenants are not allowed to sublet or transfer or assign in any way part with the rights to the tenanted premises or possession thereof without obtaining the prior written consent of the landlord. 22. According to Ms. Iyer, on 18 My, 2020, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs in cash. Three cheques were issued of Rs. 1 crore each in respect of Shop No. A and Rs. 1 crore for Shop No. B. Surprisingly, there was no mention of the third cheque during the submissions made by the plaintiff and although Shop B is said to be let to the brother of the defendant No. 1 and a sum of Rs. 1 crore is said to be payable for Shop B, the said brother is not impleaded. One of the other documents relied upon is Exhibit-K, which is an invoice in favour of Jai Ambe and Ganesh Exports, which apparently shows the address of the suit building. This invoice is issued by one Astir Lace and Fabrics. If the issuer of the invoice is in some way be connected with Mohit Astir, who was said to be accompanying the plaintiff while entering into the transaction, the bona fides of the supply of good is questionable. The List of documents/compilation also annexes to it Exhibit-P, which is a translation of First Information Report dated 1 August, 2020. The complainant in that case is the brother of the 1st defendant Deepak Dwarkadas Tulsiani and the complaint is made regarding the plaintiff, two other persons and the 1st defendant. The List of documents/compilation also annexes to it Exhibit-P, which is a translation of First Information Report dated 1 August, 2020. The complainant in that case is the brother of the 1st defendant Deepak Dwarkadas Tulsiani and the complaint is made regarding the plaintiff, two other persons and the 1st defendant. The FIR indicates that the plaintiff along with the informant's brother i.e. the defendant No. 1 had attempted to enter the shop. That upon seeing a closed circuit to camera there, the plaintiff shifted the camera to a different view and thereupon the complainant realized that the plaintiff and the 1 defendant were upto some mischief and as a result, he called the police station and sought help. By that time it appears that the locks put on the shop had been broken and upon the police authorities inspecting the CCTV, one of the digital video recorder was missing and the second one was damaged by pouring water on it. The allegation is that the 1st defendant had also damaged the biometric system used for recording entry and exit of the persons into the shop premises. It is further alleged that the jewellery in the shop was taken out and toys were put in place. The entire set of facts in my view is a hotchpotch as set out. Several aspects are unconnected and it does appear that there are serious disputes relating to whether or not the transaction as set out in the plaint was a bona fide transaction. 23. In the present case, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Parikh, the property and vests not only in the 2 defendant but the children of the said Dilipkumar Shroff. The alleged telephone conversation with one Kaushal would not entitle the plaintiff to proceed on the basis that the landlords had consented to the transfer of the tenancy. Not only that, even the rent bills/receipts at Exhibit "D" also annexed to the list of dates and referred to by Ms. Iyer do not bear any signatures. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ms. Iyer agreed that signatures were indeed missing from the receipts. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff was put in possession. Iyer do not bear any signatures. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ms. Iyer agreed that signatures were indeed missing from the receipts. Prima facie, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff was put in possession. Merely relying upon disjointed WhatsApp conversations and photographs and allegedly fixing locks from within the premises do not help the plaintiff to establish his case and in my view, the balance of convenience is also not in his favour. These are facts which will have to be been gone into at a detailed hearing after completion of pleadings. 24. Furthermore, the defendant No. 3 has been impleaded only as a formal party and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned AGP has since filed before the court in a sealed cover the statement recorded by the police authorities and an investigation is still underway. Clearly there is more than meets the eye and at this stage the plaintiff's attempt is to seek an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing access to the shop and the possession that he claims. No case is made out to grant such relief at this stage. 25. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any ad-interim relief. Accordingly, I pass the following order:- (i) Ad interim relief is refused. (ii) Affidavit-in-rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) List the IA in normal course as per CIS. (iv) This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court.