Disposed

St. Vincent De Pauls Co-Op Housing Society and 5 Ors.. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014WP/2936/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not decide the writ petition on merits. Observing internal disputes within the society regarding the authority behind an NOC, the Court adjourned the matter to the appropriate alternate forum (civil courts) rather than exercising writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None granted; matter relegated to appropriate alternate forum.

St. Vincent De Pauls Co-Op Housing Society and 5 Ors.. Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

43)OSWPL3054.14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3054 OF 2014

¶6

St. Vincent De Paul's Co-op. Hsg. Society & Ors.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mrs. Nilima V. Sanglikar, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, Advocate for the respondent-MCGM.

¶11

Mr. Shailesh Shah, Sr. Advocate i/b M/s. A.S. Khan & Associates, Advocate for the respondent No. 6.

¶12

Mr. Jaydeep Mitra i/b Bhaskar Yogi, Advocate for the Intervener – Mr. Vincent Mathias.

¶13

CORAM:-NARESH H. PATIL & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : -01/12/2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard.

¶16

2 The petitioners pray for a direction to the respondent -

¶17

Corporation in respect of conversion of use of subject structure from

¶18

residential to non-residential purposes. The learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioners submits that without seeking proper permission, the respondent No. 6 is going ahead with the change of user of the

1/3

43)OSWPL3054.14

subject structure. It is submitted that against the provisions of law the respondent No. 6 had asked for permission to start a departmental store and thereafter to start a restaurant. The plot being bungalow plots constructed on a leasehold property, the Corporation has no authority to grant permission to the respondent No. 6 for change of user of the premises from residential to commercial purposes.

¶24

3 The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the petitioners had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 1769 of 2014 and this Court (Coram:-Anoop V. Mehta and F.M. Reis, JJ.) had disposed of the petition by an order dated 22/9/2014, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the society had granted N.O.C to the respondent No. 6 for nonresidential use of the subject structure by a communication,which is annexed at Exhibit-F to the petition. The counsel placed reliance on Exhibit-D, the communication dated 3/8/2013, made by the Corporation to the Architect. The counsel submits that the structure is to be used for noncommercial purposes after obtaining necessary permissions.

¶25

4 We have perused the order passed by this Court in writ

2/3

43)OSWPL3054.14

petition, Exhibits “D” and “F” and other relevant documents. We have also perused relevant clauses of the lease agreement. In the facts of the case, we observe that the Corporation would deal with the issue of grant of N.O.C strictly in accordance with law. While taking decision, the Corporation shall also take into consideration the representation of the Society.

¶30

5 It seems that there are some internal disputes between the members of the society. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Honorary Secretary had issued the NOC to the respondent No. 6 without any authority in law. In this situation of the matter, it

¶31

is appropriate that the parties are relegated to the appropriate alternate forum. The parties may pursue such remedy as permissible in law.

¶32

6 With these observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶33

(A. P. BHANGALE, J.)

¶34

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶35

md.saleem

¶36

3/3

St. Vincent De Pauls Co-Op Housing Society and 5 Ors.. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Vincent De Pauls Co-Op Housing Society and 5 Ors.. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 9 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

Kiran Vijay Rathod Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Kiran Vijay Rathod Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

Vishwanath Bhikaji Tawade (Since Deceased L.R. 1. Sudhir Vishwanath Tawade and Ors) Vs 1. the Collector and Deputy Director of Rehabilitation

Dadar Motor Works Vs the Assistant Commissioner, and 3 Ors.

Shri. Dayanand Baliram Bhandari Vs the Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee and Ors.

Mumbai Seema Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.