Dismissed

Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi and Ors. v. Bhusal Municipal Council and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2014WP/718/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of Writ Petitions where petitioners challenged the granting of possession of new market shops to respondents who were the erstwhile tenants. The Court held that the Municipal Council adopted a uniform policy of handing over possession to those in actual possession and found no illegality, remitting ownership disputes to the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petitions and Civil Application are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings for possession before the competent court.

Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi and Ors. Vs Bhusal Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2004. WITH

¶7

C.A.NO.5135 OF 2009

¶8

1. Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi,

¶9

Age 64 years,

¶10

2. Narayan Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 37 years,

¶11

3. Ashok Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 31 years,

¶12

4. Chandar Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 25 years,

¶13

5. Jintendra Sukhumal Sindhi,
Minor Aged 17 years by his
mother Petitioner No.1 Mirabai
Sukhumal Sindhi.

¶14

6. Rajkumar Laxman Sindhi,
Aged 31 years,

¶15

7. Godawari Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 27 years,

¶16

8. Ganga Sukhumal Sindhi,
Aged 27 years,

¶17

9. Laxmi Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 16 years,
Minor Aged 16 years by her mother
the Petitioner No.1 Mirabai Sukhumal.

¶18

10. Jamna Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 23 years,

¶19

11. Chanda Sukhumal Sindhi,

¶20

¶21

Age 21 years,
12. Kaushilya Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 20 years,
All employed, Resident of Bhusaval,
Sindhi Colony, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioners.

¶22

Versus

¶23

1. Bhusaval Municipal Council,
through its Chief Officer,
Bhusaval.
2. Shri Baviskar,
Chief Officer,
Municipal Council,
Bhusaval.
3. Shrichand Motiram Sonar(Awatramani),
Age 58 years, Occ.Tailor,
Resident of Sindhi Colony,
Bhusaval.
4. The Collector, Jalgaon,
District Jalgaon.
5. The State of Maharashtra
(Urban Development Department),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032). ... Respondents.

¶24

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr.G.V.Wani, advocate Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Patil, advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for
Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Respondent No.2 though served - absent.

¶25

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.4973 OF 2003

¶27

1. Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 64 years,

¶28

2. Narayan Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 37 years,

¶29

3. Ashok Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 31 years,

¶30

4. Chandar Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 25 years,

¶31

5. Jintendra Sukhumal Sindhi,
Minor Aged 17 years by his
mother Petitioner No.1 Mirabai
Sukhumal Sindhi.

¶32

6. Rajkumar Laxman Sindhi,
Aged 31 years,

¶33

7. Godawari Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 27 years,

¶34

8. Ganga Sukhumal Sindhi,
Aged 27 years,

¶35

9. Laxmi Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 16 years,
Minor Aged 16 years by her mother
the Petitioner No.1 Mirabai Sukhumal.

¶36

10. Jamna Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 23 years,

¶37

11. Chanda Sukhumal Sindhi,
Age 21 years,

¶38

All employed, Resident of Bhusaval,
Sindhi Colony, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioners.

¶39

 Versus

¶40

¶41

1. Bhusaval Municipal Council,
through its Chief Officer,
Bhusaval.

¶42

2. Shri Baviskar,
Chief Officer,
Municipal Council,Bhusaval

¶43

3. Bhagchand Fatandas Chandwani,
Aged 62 years, Occ.Business.

¶44

4. Lalchand Fatandas Chandwani,
New 1/986, Aged 60 years,
Occ.Business, R/o Chandwani Bhawan,
Baba Tulsidas Road, Sindhi Colony,
Bhusaval, Dist.Jalgaon.

¶45

5. The Collector, Jalgaon,
Dist.Jalgaon.

¶46

6. The State of Maharashtra
(Urban Development Department)
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032). ... Respondents.

¶47

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶48

Mr.L.V.Sangeet, advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and
4.
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for
Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Respondent No.2 though served - absent.

¶49

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
 N.W.SAMBRE, JJ.

¶50

 Date : 29.04.2014.

¶51

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

¶52

1.Heard.

¶53

¶54

2.The Petitioners in both these Writ
petitions assail the Resolution dated 30.11.2000,
passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. They further
seek directions to handover shop No.81 and shop
No.82 to them which is given in possession of
Respondent No.3.

¶55

3.Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for

¶56

the petitioners states that initially Writ
Petition bearing No.1318/1988 was filed before
this Court. The order was passed with the
consent of the parties. This Court passed the
following order :

¶57

"6.Wedirectthe

¶58

municipal council of Bhusaval to

¶59

construct the new market within the
time frame fixed in the said
resolution. Needless to mention that
all the 102 members of the

¶60

association will be accommodated in
the new market. The allotment will
be made by drawing lots. The shop
owners shall deposit the cost of the

¶61

¶62

construction as per the resolution
within two months from today, as
fixed by the municipal council. The
shop owners will vacate their shops
within 1 month after the sanction of
the plan and the awarding of the
contract to the contractors. The
shop owners will be provided with
alternative stalls/shops pending the
construction. The Municipal Council
shall complete the work within the
time frame given in the resolution
dated 23rd February 1996. In case
the municipality is unable to adhere
to the time schedule or is unable to
proceed with the construction for any
other reason if will be open for the
members of the association to
construct the market under the
supervision of the municipal council.
The rent of the new shops-stalls will
be fixed by committee as per the
resolution.

¶63

Writ Petition disposed of

¶64

¶65

accordingly. Liberty to apply in

¶66

case of difficulty."

¶67

4.According to the learned counsel,

¶68

though Respondent No.3 in both these petitions
were the erstwhile tenants of the petitioners of
the old structures prior to its demolition.
However, the moment the said structures were
demolished, the relationship between the
petitioners and Respondent No.3 as that of
landlord and tenant came to an end. Once the
construction over which a person is a tenant is
razed or demolished the tenancy stands
extinguished. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in a case of

¶69

"Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee"
reported in 2000 AIR (SCW) 4592. The learned
counsel submits that the Municipal Council passed
the impugned Resolution by virtue of which the
newly constructed tenement shop Nos.81 and 82 are
handed over to Respondent No.3 on the ground that
they were tenants. The petitioners have deposited

¶70

the amount with the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It
is the petitioners who should have been handed

¶71

¶72

the possession of the same. The act of

¶73

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in handing over possession
to Respondent NO.3 is illegal. The petitioners
deserve to be put in possession of the said
shops.

¶74

5.Mr.Wani, learned counsel for the
Respondent Municipal Council submits that the
shops were constructed pursuant to the orders
passed by this Court and as agreed. Resolution
No.37 was passed on 26.6.1998. The list was
given of the persons who were occupying the shops
as tenants and owners. In the said list in
column No.2, names of owners were stated and in
column NO.3 the names of the tenants who were in
actual possession were detailed. The possession
of the shops in each and every case was given to
the persons shown in column NO.3 of the said
list. No illegality has been committed.

¶75

6.Mr.Sangeet,learnedcounselfor

¶76

Respondent No.3 submits that the Respondent No.3
in both these matters were the tenants of the
shops owned by the petitioners. At the time of

¶77

¶78

demolition, the Respondent No.3 were in
possession and on reconstruction by the Municipal
Council, possession has been rightly handed over
to the present Respondent No.3. The same was in
consonance with the Resolution passed.

¶79

7.The fact that the Respondent No.3 were
the tenants of the petitioners in the shops prior
to its demolition is not disputed. Even
petitioners had filed suit for eviction against
them before the Civil Court. After demolition
new tenements were constructed as agreed and as
per the orders passed in W.P.No.1318/1988. The
list is also a part of the record wherein in
column No.2 the names of the owners of the shops
which were demolished are mentioned and in
column No.3 the names of the persons who were in
actual possession of the said shops are detailed.
The learned counsel for Municipal Council after
taking instructions has made a categorical
statement that on reconstruction of the
tenements, possession has been handed over to the
persons whose names were stated in column No.3
i.e. who were in actual possession as on the date

¶80

¶81

of the demolition of the old shops.

¶82

8.The Respondent No.3 is already put in
possession of the said shop pursuant to the
Resolution passed. The demolition of the said
shops were with the consent of the parties and
the names of the persons were detailed in the
list prepared by the Municipal Council. It is
not disputed that the possession was taken from
Respondent No.3 and in light thereof, the same
was handed over by the Municipal Council to the
Respondent No.3 on construction of new tenement.

¶83

9.In the present case, this Court would
not be required to decide the rights of the
tenancy or otherwise between the petitioner and
Respondent No.3. The same will have to be
decided by the competent Court.

¶84

10.The Municipal Council has given
possession of the new shops to the persons who
were in possession of old shops. The said policy
was adopted in each and every shop. The
petitioners are at liberty to take up proceedings

¶85

¶86

before the competent Court for recovery of

¶87

possession. It can not be said that the
Municipal Council has committed any illegal act
while handing over possession to Respondent No.3
as uniform policy was adopted by them to hand
over possession of newly constructed tenements to
the persons who were in possession of old shops.

¶88

11.In light of the above, the Writ
Petitions are disposed of. The petitioners are
at liberty to take up appropriate proceedings
seeking possession.

¶89

12.The Civil Application also stands
disposed of.

¶90

(N.W.SAMBRE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶91

asp/office/wp718.04

Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi and Ors. v. Bhusal Municipal Council and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirabai Sukhumal Sindhi and Ors. v. Bhusal Municipal Council and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Pandharinath Nage and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Anna Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak Eknath Khairnar and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

M/S Deelip Engineering Works Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Saibaba Bahudeshiya Sanstha Sundarwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krantisinha Nana Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.