Allowed

Madan J. Upadhyay v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024IA/17232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court extended the time for eviction and demolition of suit structures until March 31, 2024, directing the Municipal Corporation to decide on alternate premises applications within four weeks, after noting eligibility and availability issues.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time for eviction and demolition until 31 March 2024; direction to Municipal Corporation to decide on alternate premises applications within four weeks.

Madan J. Upadhyay Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

17-IA-17729-2023& 4 ORS.docx 10 January 2024.

¶2

1/5

¶3

Neeta Sawant

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17229 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO. 641 OF 2023

¶8

Vivek Upadhyay ….Applicant/ Appellant V/s. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner ….Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17229 OF 2023 IN

¶11

SECOND APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2023

¶12

Madan J. Upadhyay ….Applicant V/s. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner ….Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17231 OF 2023 IN

¶15

SECOND APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2023

¶16

Lallan Yadav ….Applicant/ Appellant V/s. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner ….Respondent

¶17

17-IA-17729-2023& 4 ORS.docx 10 January 2024.

2/5

Neeta Sawant

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17228 OF 2023 IN

¶22

SECOND APPEAL NO. 643 OF 2023

¶23

Raish Akbar Khan ….Applicant/ Appellant V/s. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner ….Respondent

¶24

WITH

¶25

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17233 OF 2023 IN

¶26

SECOND APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2023

¶27

Vivek Upadhyay ….Applicant/ Appellant

¶28

V/s. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner ….Respondent

¶29

Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole, for the Applicant.

¶30

Mr. N.R. Bubna , for the Respondent.

¶31

17-IA-17729-2023& 4 ORS.docx 10 January 2024.

¶32

3/5

¶33

Neeta Sawant

¶34

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶35

Dated : 10 January 2024.

¶36

P.C. :

¶37

The Interim Applications are filed seeking extension of time fixed for demolition of the suit structures.

¶38

I have perused the Order dated 15 December 2022 passed by this Court. This Court has recorded Undertakings given by the Appellants for vacation of the suit property and demolition thereof within six months. On account of filing of such Undertakings, in ordinary course this Court would be loathe in extending the time limit which was fixed by the Appellants themselves for demolition of the suit structures.

¶39

However, Mr. Gole, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants would draw my attention to the observations made by this Court in para-7 of the Order which reads thus :

¶40

However, the Appellant is at liberty to file application seeking alternate structure within a period of three weeks from today. Mr. Bubna, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent states that if such application is filed, the same will be decided in accordance with law within three months after receipt of the application. It is clarified that this Court has not examined said aspect regarding alternate premises and all the contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open.”

¶41

Neeta Sawant 4/5 17-IA-17729-2023& 4 ORS.docx 10 January 2024.

¶42

According to Mr. Gole, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, in para-7 of the Order, the Applicants/Appellants have preferred applications before the Municipal Corporation for allotment of alternate premises. It appears that the Municipal Corporation called for several documents from the Appellants by letter dated 9 March 2023. After submission of the requisite documents, it appears that the Municipal Corporation proceeded to determine the eligibility of each of the Applicant for grant of alternate premises and has held them to be eligible for grant of such alternate premises. Letters to that effect have been issued to the Applicants on 31 March 2023. However, it appears that on account of nonavailability of alternate premises with the Municipal Corporation, the actual allotment has not been done even though the Appellants are found eligible for such allotment.

¶43

Mr. Gole would invite my attention to the letter dated 11 August 2023 of the Assistant Director of Town Planning of the Municipal Corporation which records that the Municipal Corporation has received possession of about 200 premises. Mr. Gole would therefore submit that since the premises for allotment are now available with the Municipal Corporation, the Applicants are likely to be allotted the same. For this purpose, extension of time for demolition of the suit structure is sought.

¶44

The Interim Applications are accordingly disposed of by directing that the Municipal Corporation to take decision with regard to the Applications made by the Applicants for allotment of alternate premises within four weeks from today. The time undertaken by the Applicants for

¶45

17-IA-17729-2023& 4 ORS.docx 10 January 2024.

¶46

5/5

¶47

Neeta Sawant

¶48

eviction and demolition of the suit structures shall stand extended upto to 31 March 2024.

¶49

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶50

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶51

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.01.12 12:28:56 +0530

Madan J. Upadhyay v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan J. Upadhyay v. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner

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

Vvf Ltd. Employees Union Vs Vvf India Ltd.

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd through Attorney Mrs. Heena Usmani Vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai and Ors.

Oriental Integrity Facility Management Pvt.Ltd through Attorney Mrs. Heena Usmani Vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai and Ors.

Suresh Rajaram Khot Vs the Managing Director Rajrambhau Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Era Realtors Private Limited Vs Prakash Shah

Shankar Jagannath Pawar Vs Madhav/Mahadev Daulat Pawar Thr. L/R Chandrabai Madhav Pawar and Ors.