Dismissed

Karan Singh Himmatlal Purohit and 10 Ors. v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2019WP/2255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench of the High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation regarding a dilapidated building. The court held the petition had no merit as vague allegations were insufficient to interfere with the notice.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed and the ad-interim order is vacated.

Karan Singh Himmatlal Purohit and 10 Ors. Vs the Mumbai… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

8-OSWPL4167-18.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4167 OF 2018

¶4

Karan Singh Himmatlal Purohit & Ors...Petitioners
Versus

¶5

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater ...Respondents
& Ors

¶6

Mr SP Srivastava, for the Petitioners.
Ms Fatima Barodawalla, i/b Raval-Shah & Co, for Respondent No.4.
Ms Rupali Adhate, for MCGM.
Mr Vaibhav Ghodake, JE (B & F), K/W Ward, present.

¶7

CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ
DATED:13th August 2019

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.After hearing Mr Srivastava appearing for the Petitioners and
perusing with his assistance the Writ Petition and the annexures
thereto so also the Affidavit and Reply, we are of the opinion that
this Writ Petition has no merit.

¶10

2.The Petitioners are not aggrieved at all with the satisfaction
reached by the Municipal Authorities that the building, which is
more than 40 years old, is dilapidated and dangerous for human
occupation. It is likely to fall and the consequences would be

¶11

Page 1 of 5 13th August 2019

¶12

8-OSWPL4167-18.DOC

¶13

suffered by those residing in its neighbourhood or passers-by. The
electricity and water supply to the building were threatened to be
disconnected after which the Petitioners moved firstly the electricity
company but it was not concerned with the dispute between the
Petitioners and landlord/owner of the building. Then in a faint
attempt to resist the Notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act
1888, the Petitioners said in their Advocate’s letter/reply that they
had no grievance about the issuance of the Notice but only stated
that the landlord or the owner neglected the building. Then they
said that they were ready and willing for a redevelopment of the
property after bringing down the old construction. An agreement
was executed by the owner with some developer but that agreement
came to be terminated and thereafter the owner had not come
forward with any redevelopment proposal nor had extended the
benefit of any pending proposal to the present Petitioners.

¶14

3.To our mind the Petition is a replica of the contents of this
Reply given through the Advocate. In the grounds there is absolutely
no challenge to the opinion of the Municipal Authorities. All that
the Petitioners say that such Municipal Authorities in issuing
notices act at the behest of the landlord or owner. We have already
held in several judgments rendered that such vague allegation is not
enough to interfere with the notice much less to quash it or set it
aside. (See: Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah & Ors v Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition (L) No. 1755 of

¶15

Page 2 of 5 13th August 2019

¶16

8-OSWPL4167-18.DOC

¶17

2019, decided on 24th June 2019; Inderjit Singh Sethi & Ors v
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No.
880 of 2018, decided on 9th July 2019; Ramesh Nathubhai Patel &
Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors, Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2016,
decided on 9th July 2019; Kutbi Manzil Tenants Welfare Association v
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No.
2451 of 2018, decided on 16th July 2019; Sundar R. Gavaskar & Ors
v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No.
602 of 2019, decided on 29th July 2019; Richard Gasper Mathias &
Ors v Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 2108 of 2018 decided on 1st
August 2019.)

¶18

4.The Notice is issued after the Municipal Corporation has
taken the requisite steps. It has cautioned all persons including the
present Petitioners occupying the old buildings that there has to be a
structural audit carried out. The structural audit has not been
carried out. The consultant engaged by the landlord has expressly
opined that the columns and beams have developed cracks. The
reinforcement is exposed and corroded at many places. The waist
slab of the staircase is damaged, plaster is pulled down and steel is
corroded, and vegetation is observed on the external face of the
building. There are cracks on the external plaster face. There is thus
a confirmation independently made from the experts by the
Municipal Authorities about the state of the building.

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

13th August 2019

¶21

8-OSWPL4167-18.DOC

¶22

5.The Petitioners were informed that should they wish to
contest the opinion, observations and recommendations of M/s. BJ
Mehta Consultants Private Limited they must hire a structural
engineer from the Municipal Panel at their own cost and submit a
report well in advance. Should that report contain conflicting
observations and recommendations then alone the prevalent policy
requires the matter to be referred to the Technical Advisory
Committee. This letter is also not referred in the Memo of the
Petition. What is referred and relied upon is a mere letter of the so-
called Consultant hired by the Petitioners at Exhibit “F” who says
that he will forward his opinion. His opinion has not been forwarded
to the Municipal Authorities until the lodging of this Writ Petition.
Therefore there was no obligation on the Corporation to refer the
matter to the Technical Advisory Committee.

¶23

6. Hence there is neither any deviation from any prevailing policy nor is the notice vitiated by mala fides or perversity of the nature set out by this Court in recent Judgments.

¶24

7. We also find that the exhaustive Affidavit in Reply of the Municipal Corporation was on our file. It was filed on 14th February 2019 and a copy of the same was served on the Petitioners well in advance. There is no rejoinder Affidavit.

¶25

Page 4 of 5

¶26

13th August 2019

¶27

8-OSWPL4167-18.DOC

¶28

8.As a result of the above discussion this Writ Petition fails. It is
dismissed and the ad-interim order is vacated.

¶29

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶31

Page 5 of 5 13th August 2019

Karan Singh Himmatlal Purohit and 10 Ors. v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh Himmatlal Purohit and 10 Ors. v. the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater and 3 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

Gracy Abraham and 4 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Pillai Maridas Velswamy Vs Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Dept. through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Air India Ltd. Kamgar Sangh (Mumbai) Vs Air India Limited Thr Its Managing Director and 6 Ors.

Shah and Parikh Engineers and Contractors Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

Ramnarayan Nathuprasad Pande and 30 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.