The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of a demolished shop and alternate premises. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding tenancy status and ownership precluded grant of relief in a writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with rule discharged.
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. 2270 OF 2000
Mr.Abdul Majid Abdul Razak
Qureshi
...Petitioner
The Municipal Corporation
of Gr.Bombay
...Respondent
Mr.O.P.Singh for the Petitioner.
Ms.S.M.Modhle for the Respondent.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, &
R.G.KETKAR, JJ
DATED: 9th September, 2009
P.C.:
1.The Petitioner by this Petition seeks
an order for restoration of a shop, of which
according to him he was the tenant. That shop
was demolished by the Corporation for
widening of the road without issuing any
2
notice to him. The Petitioner is also
claiming a direction for allotment of
alternate premises. The claim of the
Petitioner that he is tenant of the shop is
based on the agreement dated 5th March, 1974
which does not have exact description of the
property. Shankarlal Harilal Shah is
disclosed as the landlord, but there are no
documents on record to show that he is owner
of the land. The document at Exh.A shows that
Shankarlal Harilal Shah was owner of some
agricultural land. There are averments made
in the petition that after his shop was
allegedly demolished by the Corporation, he
was permitted to use one side of the road
until alternate premises is allotted to him.
In our opinion, the petition involves
disputed question of fact and therefore,
appropriate remedy of the Petitioner would
have been to file a civil suit. The
3
Petitioner in fact had given a notice under
Section 527 of the BMC Act to the Corporation
claiming same relief, but then why he
dropped that idea and file this Writ Petition
is not known. In our opinion, in view of the
disputed facts involved, no relief can be
granted to the Petitioner. Petition is,
therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No
order as to costs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable for restoration of a demolished shop where tenant status and ownership are disputed.
Whether this Court can grant relief in a case involving disputed questions of fact regarding tenancy and demolition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Majid Abdul Razak Qureshi
The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay
D.K.Deshmukh
R.G.Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court