Coram discharged the writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation's refusal to regularize the petitioner's occupancy, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirement of physical possession.
Corporation's order dated 23rd November 2000 remained in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
.[1].
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2719 OF 2004
Mrs.Mubark Bee Sultan Ahmed ...Petitioner.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents.
....
None for the Petitioner.
....
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATED : JULY 05, 2006.
P.C.:
. The petitioner approached this Court
against the order dated 23rd November, 2000
whereby the Corporation has came to a conclusion
that the petitioner alongwith other occupants
therein were claiming to be the occupants of the
premises without authority of law. There is no
dispute that Pitch No.D/MKT/43 was allowed to be
occupied by Shri.Madhavan Ramdee. Shri.Madhavan
Ramdee, it appears, was in default of licence fees
and had transferred the premises without
permission of the Respondent Corporation in favour
of one Sultan Ahmed who expired leaving behind the
petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the sole
.[2].
heir of Sultan Ahmed. The learned Authority came
to the conclusion that for the purposes of
regularisation the transferee must be in physical
possession of the premises. In the instant case,
it was found that the petitioner was not in
possession of the premises and in these
circumstances, the authority recorded a finding
that the petitioner was not entitled to be
inducted into the premises. Apart from that
certain other findings have been recorded which
are not relevant for this Court to decide the
controversy. Considering the finding of fact, we
are not inclined to interfere in exercise of our
extra ordinary jurisdiction. Petition stands
disposed of.
[F.I.REBELLO,J.]
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to induction into the premises despite not being in physical possession at the time of the Corporation's order.
Mrs.Mubark Bee Sultan Ahmed
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
F.I.REBELLO
V.K.TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court