Allowed

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. v. B.M.C. and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2014WP/1081/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of a writ petition and civil application after finding the matter infructuous. The court ordered the trust to be permitted to take possession of a shop in lieu of the demolished tenanted premises.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners not present; Civil Application allowed; Respondent Trust permitted to take possession of Shop No.9 in 'Sanghavi Square'.

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. Vs B.M.C. and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

kambli

¶3

wp-1081-03 & CA1609-11

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1081 OF 2003

¶6

Vinay A.Sonpal and anr. ...Petitioners v/s. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and ors. ...Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1609 OF 2011 IN

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.2426 OF 2005 (Not on Board. Upon mentioning taken up on Board)

¶11

Kanji Laxmidas and ors. ...Applicants v/s. Vinay A.Sonpal and ors. ...Respondents

¶12

None for the petitioners. Mr.Drupad Patil i/b Girish Godbole for respondent No.3. Mr.Rajesh Datar with Mr.Dushyant Pagave for intervenor. Ms.S.M.Modle for BMC.

¶13

Ms.Sneha Ravi Iyer i/b Narayanan & Narayanan for respondent No.12.

¶14

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 7 APRIL 2014

1 of 5

kambli

wp-1081-03 & CA1609-11

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

When the matter was last listed on 4 April 2014, none appeared for the petitioners. However to give last opportunity, hearing was fixed today. Today also when the matter is called out none appears for the petitioners.

¶21

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which has thereafter been treated as a public interest litigation, the petitioners' challenge was to the commencement certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mmbai to respondent No.2-developer for construction of the premises in respect of the property which were in occupation of respondent No.3-Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Seva Samaj- a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Respondents Nos.4 to 11 were trustees and respondent No.12-M/s.Sangavi Land Developers Pvt.Ltd. has purchased the development rights in the property from respondent No.2.

¶22

In the affidavit in reply filed by one of the trustees on 8 August 2005, it was pointed out that the trust was occupying a flat admeasuring 1287 sq.ft. as a tenant of the building in question. The building being in extremely dilapidated condition was demolished. It was, therefore, submitted that permission to reconstruct a building on the land on which earlier there was a dilapidated building was in the interest of the trust. In respect of the tenanted premises, the trust would get permanent alternate

¶23

2 of 5

¶24

kambli 3 wp-1081-03 & CA1609-11

¶25

accommodation of 235 sq.ft. carpet area on ownership basis and sum of Rs.65 lacs to augment the corpus of the trust in lieu of 1287 sq.ft. of the flat which was occupied by the trust as a tenant before demolition of the building.

¶26

It was further pointed out in the said affidavit that there was already pending litigations before the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act and therefore also there was no need to entertain the present writ petition.

¶27

At the hearing today, learned counsel for the trust and the trustees has also invited our attention to the subsequent affidavit dated 11 April 2012 of Mr.Vinodrai Modi, one of the trustees, pointing out that the building has already been constructed and that the developer has called upon the respondent No.3-trust by letter dated 12 February 2010 (Exh.I to the affidavit dated 11 April 2012) to take possession of the shop admeasuring 235 sq.ft. That letter was sent by the developer to the trust as far back on 12 February 2010 and therefore the trustees filed Civil Application No.1609 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.2426 of 2005 on 10 June 2010. That civil application has been filed seeking permission for the trustees to take possession of the said shop on the first floor of the building known as Sanghavi Square, M.G.Road, Ghatkopar (w), Mumbai.

¶28

3 of 5

¶29

kambli 4 wp-1081-03 & CA1609-11

¶30

Learned counsel submits that the trustees may be permitted to take possession of the said shop as any further delay in the trustees taking possession of the shop only causes prejudice and hardship to the trust without any corresponding benefit to any other party. Learned counsel also invites our attention to the fact that the Municipal Corporation had already granted part occupation permission on 27 January 2010 certifying that the commercial building comprising of Basement + ground + stilt + 1^st to 5^th upper floors on the land in question is completed under supervision of licensed Architect and licensed Structural Engineer. The part occupation certificate is produced at Exh.H to the affidavit dated 11 April 2012.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent-trust and trustees submits that the writ petition has become infructuous and in any view of the matter no case is made out for quashing and setting aside the commencement certificate which was issued as far back as on 13 August 2002. Learned counsel further submits that over and above Rs.65 lacs received by the trust from the developer as per the agreement referred to hereinabove, the trust has also received further amount of additional sum of Rs.14.50 lacs for the delay in completion of the project.

¶32

4 of 5

¶33

kambli 5

¶34

wp-1081-03 & CA1609-11

¶35

In view of the above, it is clear that the old building in question was in a dilapidated condition which did require reconstruction. Further the trust had an area of 1287 sq.ft. as a tenant in the dilapidated building and was used by the trust as its office. The trust will now be getting possession of the shop on the ground floor admeasuring 235 sq.ft. + Rs.65 lacs + Rs.14.50 lacs as indicated above in lieu of 1287 sq.ft. of tenanted premises. In the circumstances nothing further is required to be done in the matter except to allow Civil Application No.1609 of 2011. Respondent No.3-Trust and trustees are permitted to take over possession of the shop No.9 on the ground floor of the building called “Sanghavi Square”.

¶36

Writ petition and civil application are accordingly disposed of.

¶37

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

¶39

5 of 5

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. v. B.M.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay S. Sonpal and Ors. v. B.M.C. 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

Inter Gold (I) Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise.

Rajeshkumar Dewandchand Mehra and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sgs Infratech Limited Sgc Mall Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Shri. Nainesh Suresh Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Home Minister, Home Dept and Ors.

Mr. Vinod Vishnu Dalvi Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Ushdev International Ltd. Vs Sims Copper Sdn Bhd and 4 Ors.