Partly allowed

Shivanjali Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2007NMW/70/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an injunction against operating an unauthorized gymnasium, the court held that the operator cannot continue illegal activities without permission from the competent authority, though the landlord must initiate action against the petitioner as well.

What did the court decide?

Restraint on operating the gymnasium in the basement until valid permission from the competent authority is obtained; liberty granted to approach for modification.

Shivanjali Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Mumbai… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 70 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3156 OF 2006

¶7

Shivanjali Co-op Hsg.Soc.Ltd
and Ors....Petitioners
vs.
Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors....Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.U.Kamdar i/by.M.P.Jagani for the Petitioners.
Mrs.A.K.Savla for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Ms. D.M.Shah for Respondent No.4.

¶10

Mr.Vishal Phal, AGP for Respondent No.6.

¶11

Mr.K.K.Singhvi a/w. Mr.M.K. Nesari i/by.M/s.Subhash
Pradhan & Co. for Respondent NO.5

¶12

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶13

DATE ; 21ST FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶14

P.C :-

¶15

1.Rule.

¶16

2.Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

:2:

¶18

3. On 12.2.2007 this court felt that the petition
can be disposed off at the stage of admission itself.
It does not appear to, be feasible as there are
allegations and counter allegations brought on record
by the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 and 5 as
regards various illegalities in the construction of
the building and its use by the members of the
Petitioner Society for which the Respondent no.1 has
initiated necessary action. There is no dispute over
the fact that the Gymnasium and Health Club which is
run by Respondent No.5 in the premises let out by
Respondent no.4 is unauthorised.

¶19

4. Mr.Singhvi, Learned Sr.Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.5, submits that, though the Gymnasium
may be unauthorised, it is for the Respondent No.1 to
initiate necessary action, but, this Court cannot
injunct the Respondent No.5 from operating the
Gymnasium. It is further contended that the
illegality/irregularity, if any, can be well
regularised by the Respondent No.1 in law and that
injunction granted by this court vide order dated

¶20

:3:

¶21

17.1.2007 is without jurisdiction and it forecloses
the rights of the Respondent No.5 to seek redress in
the matter.

¶22

5. We are prima-facie satisfied after examining the
various provisions of the Development Control Rules
and the MRTP Act, 1966, a Gymnasium is being operated
from the Basement without any permission from the
Respondent No.1 and therefore unless proper
permission is obtained by the Respondent No.5, they
cannot be permitted to continue with the illegal
activities. May be that the building of the Society
is constructed contrary the Sanction Plan, but, this
cannot come to the rescue of Respondent No.5 in
permitting him to continue the illegality.

¶23

6. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.1,
has pointed out that, in their Affidavit-in-reply it
has been categorically stated that action has been
initiated against the Petitioner as well as
Respondent No.5 by issuing notice and that BMC would
take necessary action. We therefore make it clear
that till the Respondent No.5 has a valid permission

¶24

:4:

¶25

and authority under the law, he will not operate the
Gymnasium from the Basement.

¶26

7. Liberty to the Learned Counsel for the parties,
to approach this Court for modification of the order,
if the parties are able to obtain necessary
permission from the competent authority.

¶27

8.Notice of Motion stands disposed off in the
aforesaid terms.

Shivanjali Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanjali Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Sohanlal Ghai and Anr. Vs Executive Health Officer and Anr.

Sudhir Rawtu, Prop. of M/S. Megha Constructions Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxmibai Arjun Sonavane and Ors. Vs Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Bhartiya Vichar Darshan Vs the Collector of Mumbai and Anr.

Reliace Transport and Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Airport Authority of India and 3 Ors.

Chhabinath Rajmani Chobey Vs Union of India and Anr.