Dismissed

Advance Locality Management v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2010WP/1345/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the lease of a municipal auditorium to a foundation, alleging construction delays caused revenue loss. Court noted civil work was progressing with completion promised by 31/08/2012 and lease rent was being paid. Dismissed petition as worked out.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Court directed Corporation to ensure civil work completion by 31/08/2012.

Advance Locality Management Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2010

¶4

ADVANCE LOCALITY MANAGEMENT (ALM)... PETITIONER

¶5

Vs.

¶6

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

¶7

.. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Jamshed Mistry a/w Dipesh U. Siroya for the petitioner Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP with Ms. I. K. Calcuttawala, AGP Mr. A. Y. Sakhare for R-2 to 4 Mr. Deepak Shegaokar for R-6

¶9

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 20/9/2010

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner claims to be Advance Local Management working with different residents forums of the Linking Road residents from Bandra to Santacruz. Respondent 6 is M/S. K. R. Foundation. It has been granted lease of Bal Gandharva Municipal Rang Mandir situated at F.P. No. 488 (part), bearing C.T.S. No. 371 (pt) of T.P.S. III, Bandra to

¶13

improve and use the said auditorium. We are informed that it was an open air auditorium. It appears that way back in 1992 the Corporation gave permission to the 6^th respondent for enclosing the theatre and for augmenting the existing theatrical facilities.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that till date the construction is not complete. According to the petitioner 17 years have elapsed causing loss of revenue to the Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶15

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶16

Our attention is drawn to the affidavit filed by Mr. Digambar M. Satam, on behalf of the Corporation. He is working as Sub Engineer in the Corporation. We find that explanation has been given on behalf of the Corporation for the delay in constructing the auditorium. In paragraph 6 it is stated that the civil work of the stage portion of the auditorium is already completed and sitting/auditorium portion is under progress and the entire civil work is slated to be completed by 31/8/2012. Though, we are not happy at the delay in constructing the auditorium in view of the categorical statement made in the affidavit that the construction will be completed by 31/8/2012, we feel that the petition has worked itself out. The anxiety expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a huge revenue loss appears to be misplaced. We are informed by Mr. Sakhare, Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that the 6^th respondent is paying lease rent of Rs. 3,65,000/- per year to the Corporation. The Corporation was not to get any amount out of the money earned by the 6^th respondent after the auditorium is completed except taxes and licence fee which are regularly levied.

¶17

We expect the Corporation to ensure that the civil work is completed at the earliest

¶18

and in any case by 31/8/2012 as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Satam.

¶19

Petition is disposed of.

¶20

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶21

(R. V. MORE, J.)

Advance Locality Management v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Advance Locality Management v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umabai Gangadhar Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bangaravva Sidram Chougule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jagannath Limbanna Mehtre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shree Laxmi Mahila Seva Sanstha Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Veekaylal Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Surekha Sakharam More Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.