Dismissed

Vishnu Dhondopant Deo v. Deep Ramesh Kumar Malhotra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2019WP/2259/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's action was dismissed. The Court held the petition was based merely on dissatisfaction with a landlord's accommodation offer, which remains a civil right under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888, not a ground for writ jurisdiction. The petition was found to lack merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

Mr Ulhas D Chemburkar, i/b DC Pathak, for the Petitioner. Ms Vandana Mahadik, for MCGM. Mr RK Ghatge, Sub-Engineer, M/Ward, present. Mr Atul Jadhav, Assistant Engineer (B & F), M/Ward, present. Ms Deepa Pohuja, with Ms Sheetal Raghani, for Respondent No. 1.

1.After having heard both sides and finding that there is no legal infirmity much less perversity brought to our notice while challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, we have no alternative but to dismiss the writ petition. The petition cannot continue on our file only because the petitioner is not satisfied with the offer made by the landlord. The owner/landlord may not guarantee the petitioner a permanent alternate accommodation at the very site but on the own showing of the petitioner there is a suit filed being RAE Suit No. 1444 of 2011 against the petitioner for eviction and possession in the Court of

Small Causes at Mumbai. If this suit was indeed filed but came to be dismissed on 1st September 2015 and still the petitioner is aggrieved at not having been offered any accommodation by the 1st respondent, then, sub-section (5) of section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888, the general law, as also the rent control legislation can all be invoked for protecting every single right and interest of the petitioner in the immovable property.

2.We cannot allow the Municipal Corporation to remain a mute spectator in this dispute and to not perform its statutory obligation and duty. It must perform this duty once a survey has been carried out in the city and its suburbs of old and dilapidated buildings. If such old dilapidated buildings are found to be dangerous for human occupation, in a ruinous state and likely to fall, and are not proceeded against, it is the general public’s interest which suffers, for such a building may collapse on innocent passers by and those in the neighbourhood.

3.The opinion or subjective satisfaction of the Municipal Authorities about the state of the building does not suffer from any perversity or mala fides calling our interference in the writ jurisdiction.

Vishnu Dhondopant Deo v. Deep Ramesh Kumar Malhotra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Dhondopant Deo v. Deep Ramesh Kumar Malhotra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiyaz Ahmed Jaffar Patel Mohammad Hussain Abdul Reheman Muns and 166 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Anr.

Rpw Projects Pvt.Ltd.(Formerly Known as Essel Rpw Projects Pvt.Ltd) Vs Iron Trangle Limited

Jagdish C. Mistry Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Mr.Vijay Chauhan and Anr. Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner of Gr. Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Farha Ashfaqali Shaha Vs the Member Secretary and Research Officer, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Div. and or