Partly allowed

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. v. the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jun 2016WP/1374/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an eviction notice directed at petitioners for a dilapidated building. It held that the Corporation acted on a flawed landlord's report and ordered an independent technical assessment under existing guidelines, directing safety measures meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to obtain independent report and assess building under paragraph 9 of WP (L) No. 1135 of 2014; Petitioners to take safety measures.

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.1374/2015(S-902)

mnm

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2015

¶6

Shri Arvind Attarde & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

Mr. Jagdish Jayale, Advocatae for the Petitioners Ms. Geeta Joglekar, Advocaate for BMC Respondent Ms. G.R. Shastri, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 30^TH JUNE, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Parties through their Counsel. Heard with Consent of the parties.

¶13

By filing this Petition the Petitioners have challenged the notices

¶14

dated 4^th May, 2009 Exhibit-L and 13^th May, 2014 Exhbit-N whereby the Municipal Corporation has directed the Petitioners / tenants to evacuate the structure in question on the ground that the building requires to be demolished as it is in a dilapidated condition.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Municipal

¶16

Corporation has not considered the report submitted by the M/s.

¶17

WP.1374/2015(S-902)

¶18

¶19

Creative Consultants in November, 2014 stating that the building in question is repairable. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the Corporation is relying merely on the report submitted by the Landlord and has not obtained any report from its structural engineers.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Corporation on the other hand submits that the Petitioners were issued notices repeatedly as the building is in highly dilapidated condition. It is further argued that after the submission of the report the Municipal Corporation had written several letters to the Petitioners to submit further fresh reports, if any, but the Petitioners have failed to do so.

¶21

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties we find that the Corporation has not obtained any independent structural report from its structural engineers and had merely acted on the basis of the report submitted by the landlord. The Corporation has also not taken into account the report submitted by the Petitioners. Thus in view of the fact that there are two conflicting reports we are inclined to dispose of this Petition in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) NO.

¶22

WP.1374/2015(S-902)

¶23

¶24

1135 of 2014 decided on 23^rd June, 2014. The Corporation to comply

¶25

with the directions / guidelines contained in paragraph 9 of the said order dated 23^rd June, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014.

¶26

The entire exercise as aforesaid to be completed by the Corporation as expeditiously as possible. The Petition is disposed of. The interim orders passed earlier and the undertaking given by the Petitioners will remain operative till fresh decision as observed above is taken by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) / Corporation.

¶27

The Petitioners are directed to take necessary safety measures as expeditiously as possible in regard to the building in question in presence of the Engineers of the Corporation under their supervision.

¶28

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. v. the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. v. the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 8 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

Suaukatali M. Betgeri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Haji Mohamed Sussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Dhanaji Ganpati Vaidha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shree. Dipty Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.