Disposed

Sudhir Naheta v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2010WP/350/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition directing the respondents to carry out necessary repairs to the petitioner's building. The court adopted the respondents' affidavit stance that repairs could proceed without tenants vacating, to be undertaken expeditiously in phases.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to carry out repairs as indicated in their reply affidavit, to be done expeditiously in phases without necessitating tenant evacuation initially.

Sudhir Naheta Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

W.P.350-10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.350 OF 2010

¶4

Sudhir Naheta .. Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Raj Patel i/b. Mohan Patel for petitioner Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 4^th August 2010.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] The petitioner is the owner and landlord of property called “Mangal” building situated at 34, A.B.Narayan Dhabolkar Marg, Mumbai. On account of the objections raised by the tenants, the building and repairs to the above property are not being carried out by respondents, though they are liable to carry out such repairs. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to start the repairs to the building in question and to

¶9

W.P.350-10

¶10

¶11

complete the same expeditiously.

¶12

2] Affidavit in reply is filed by the Deputy Engineer of respondent No.2, Board stating that the tenants who are occupying the portions of the said building are obstructing repair work. Learned Counsel for respondents invites our attention to the documents annexed to the affidavit in reply dated 4^th August 2010 of the Deputy Engineer and particularly the letter dated 28^th June 2010 of Mr.Pradip Gandhi, learned Advocate for the tenants, who has stated as follows :-

¶13

“After much discussions, my clients agreed that they will cooperate with your contractors to carry out the work of repairs, but in a phasewise manner as contemplated by me vide my previous correspondence and only after 15-8-2010 due to the heavy monsoon season in progress.”

¶14

“My clients have requested me to record the above which I hereby do and request you to start carrying out repairs only after 15/8/2010 as agreed.”

¶15

3] The Deputy Engineer has, therefore, stated as under in para 4 of the reply:-

¶16

“4. I say that the repairs will be carried out in the phase wise manner. For the purpose of carrying out the

¶17

W.P.350-10

¶18

¶19

repairs the tenant may not be require to vacate. In the first phase the repair work of the right side of the building will be carried out. In the second phase rear side work will be carried out. I say that repair of the building will be carried out as expeditiously as possible. As repair work is required to be carried out with due cooperation of the tenant, it is not possible for me to give the outer limit for completing the work. I say that I will make sincere efforts to complete the repairs.”

¶20

4] In view of this stand taken by respondents, it is clear that nothing further is required to be done in this petition except to dispose of the petition with a direction that respondents shall carry out repairs as indicated in the reply affidavit. In case the tenants and /or occupiers of the building do not cooperate with the officers of the Repair Board, it will be open to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶21

5] Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Sudhir Naheta v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Naheta v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

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

New Shree Sai Ganesh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Usman Habib Dhuka and 2 Ors. Vs Mashayak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and 3 Ors.

Matoshree Co-Operative Housing Society ()Proposed) Vs the Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) Western Suburb, M.S.D. and 6 Ors.

Gurunath Arjun Dalvi Vs Shivkrupa Majoor Sahakari Sanstha and Ors.

New Era Fabrics Limited Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Gurunath Arjun Dalvi Vs Shivkrupa Majoor Sahakari Sanstha and Ors.