Mohammed Aslam Khan vs the Municipal Corportion of Greater Mumbai L- Ward and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohammed Aslam Khan vs the Municipal Corportion of Greater Mumbai L- Ward and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed; liberty to file appropriate application(s) in the pending suit as permissible in law, including application for amending the suit; pending interim applications disposed of as infructuous; protection from demolition / no coercive action for demolition up to 23 April 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appeal should be entertained despite the Appellant having already given an undertaking to the Corporation to vacate the structure for the purpose of demolition. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court found no reason to entertain the Appeal in view of the undertaking already given by the Appellant to the Corporation to vacate the structure for demolition.

Ratio / Principle

Leave was granted to withdraw the Appeal, with liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending suit as permissible in law, including an application for amending the suit.

Key takeaways

Interim protection against demolition was granted to the Appellant for a limited period up to 23 April 2025 to enable filing of appropriate applications in the pending suit, in view of the reasons stated for protection from demolition.ratio¶21
It was directed that no coercive action be taken for demolition up to 23 April 2025.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Appeal From Order No. 74 of 2024 with Interim Application No. 766 of 2024, Mohammed Aslam Khan v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr., decided 9 April 2025 by Gauri Godse, J. The Appellant had earlier given an undertaking to the Corporation to vacate the structure for demolition; an affidavit explaining the circumstances of the undertaking and the Corporation's affidavit-in-reply were tendered before the Court. Finding no reason to entertain the Appeal in view of that undertaking, the Court permitted its withdrawal with liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending suit (including an amendment application), noting the suit building housed 25 tenant families with children facing school examinations. Time-bound protection was granted: the Appeal stood disposed of as withdrawn, the pending interim applications were disposed of as infructuous, and no coercive action for demolition was to be taken up to 23 April 2025.

909 AO 74-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 74 OF 2024

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 766 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 74 OF 2024

Mohammed Aslam Khan ...Appellant/Org. Plaintiff Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents

Mr. Atul Damle , Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Pratap Singh for the Appellant.

Mr. Dhrupad patil a/w. Mr. Om Suryavanshi i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent-BMC.

Mr. Kirankumar Annamwar, AE (B&F) ‘L’ Ward is present.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 9^th APRIL 2025

P.C.:

The learned Counsel for the Corporation had tendered a copy of an undertaking given by the Appellant on 27^th March, 2025. The copy of the undertaking was taken on record on 8^th April, 2025. On the request made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant to respond to the copy tendered by the learned Counsel for the Corporation, the Appeal was directed to be listed today.

Today the learned Counsel for the Appellant has tendered affidavit dated 8^th April, 2025 explaining the circumstances under which the undertaking was given to the Corporation.

Page 1 of 3

Laxmi

909 AO 74-24.doc

The learned Counsel for the Corporation has tendered an affidavit in reply to the Appeal denying the allegations made against the officers.

In view of the undertaking already given to the Corporation to vacate the structure for the purpose of demolition, I do not see any reason to entertain this Appeal. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant be granted liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending suit to agitate the grievances made by the Appellant in his affidavit dated 8^th April, 2025 tendered today. He further submits that the suit building is occupied by 25 tenants along with their families. He further submits that in view of the school exams of the children and being occupied by the families with children, some protection be granted to enable the Appellant to file an appropriate application in the pending suit, including application for amending suit and seeking appropriate relief.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, on instructions of the Appellant, who is present in Court, seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal with liberty to file appropriate application in the pending suit.

Leave granted. The Appellant is permitted to withdraw this Appeal with liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending suit as permissible in law including application for amending the suit. To enable the Appellant to file appropriate application and in view of the reasons stated for protection from demolition, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice to grant protection to the Appellant for a limited period i.e. up to 23^rd April 2025.

Page 2 of 3

Laxmi

909 AO 74-24.doc

The Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

In view of disposal of appeal, pending interim applications are disposed of as infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid, no coercive action be taken for demolition up to 23^rd April 2025.

[GAURI GODSE, J. ]

Page 3 of 3

Laxmi