Disposed

Apsara Cold Drink House v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/1319/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted liberty of action to petitioner carrying out repairs without prior permission on witness inspection findings. Writ petition and notice of motion disposed of without expressing opinion on merits; petitioner directed to maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to carry out repairs; status quo maintained pending City Civil Court application; Notice of Motion disposed.

Apsara Cold Drink House Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1319.14

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1319 OF 2014

¶5

Apsara Cold Drink House : Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. : Respondents

¶6

… WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.379 OF 2014 In WRIT PETITION NO.1319 OF 2014

¶7

Mrs.Jayshree Parekh : Applicant

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶9

Apsara Cold Drink House : Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai : Respondent ...

¶10

Mr.Ashok Pande for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms A.R.Joshi for Respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr.Rohan Cama i/b. Sheela Mistry for Respondent no.2.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The Petitioner has filed this Petition on 23.05.2014 to grant permission

¶15

to carry out tenantable repairs to the suit shop, viz., shop nos.1 and 2, situate on the ground floor of a building known as “Subhadra Mansion”, situated at 77, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai—400 006. The landlord was not made a party. Therefore, on 23.06.2014, we directed the Petitioner to join the landlord as a

1 of 3

wp1319.14

krs

party. The matter was adjourned for the Corporation to take instructions. There are cross-suits filed by the parties which are pending in the City Civil Court. Notice of Motion was taken out by the landlord to show that the Petitioner is carrying out repairs without permission from the Corporation which according to them are not tenantable repairs.

¶20

Mr.M.V.Kadam, Sub-Engineer, `D' Ward, inspected the premises on 4^th and 5^th July 2014.

¶21

The submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that for such construction/repairs, no permission is necessary as it is tenantable repairs. The submission therefore is made to appoint a Commissioner to verify the actual position. At this stage, as the Corporation's officer has already inspected the premises, liberty to take action, in accordance with law is granted. The Petitioner is at liberty to apply in the City Civil Court for appropriate orders in this regard.

¶22

The Petition is, therefore, disposed of. The Petitioner to maintain status quo till the disposal of the proposed Application.

¶23

The Petitioner to file appropriate application before the City Civil Court and the Court to decide the same as early as possible preferably with two weeks, subject to hearing both the parties.

2 of 3

wp1319.14

krs

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶28

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the Notice of Motion also does not survive and the same stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶30

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

Apsara Cold Drink House v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsara Cold Drink House v. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Karuna Abhijit Abhijit Rajan, through Poa, Mr. Dinesh Dharamdas Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dinkar Sidram Narute and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Dinkar Sidram Narute and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S.R.K.Builders and Anr. Vs Smt Manda Suryakant Lande and 8 Ors.

M/S. Sang Sugar Corpn. Vs Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Dr. D. Y. Patil Pratishthans College of Engineering, through Secretary, Mr. S. S. Dharamghutti Vs Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State and Ors.