Mr. Jaykar Shetty vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Thr. Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr. Jaykar Shetty vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Thr. Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals from orders disposed of with the interim protection from demolition (operating since 27.09.2024) continued till 6th February 2025, and liberty to seek extension from the City Civil Court; the interim applications were disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the protection from demolition of the suit structures, operating since 27th September 2024, should continue until the notice of motion for interim relief is finally heard by the City Civil Court.

Court's answer

The court declined to record reasons on the rival contentions at this stage, since doing so would prejudice the parties' contentions on merits before the City Civil Court where the notice of motion remains pending.

Ratio / Principle

The protection granted by the City Civil Court on 27th September 2024 (against demolition of the suit structure) shall continue till the next date, i.e. 6th February 2025.

Key takeaways

The appellants were given liberty to apply to the City Civil Court for extension of the interim protection; any such application is to be favourably considered if the notice of motion is not heard on the next date.ratio¶7(ii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Gauri Godse, J.), 6th January 2025 — Appeal From Order Nos. 764, 765 and 772 of 2024 with connected interim applications: Mr. Rampyare J. Benbashi, Mr. Jaykar Shetty and Mr. Jitendra G. Kamble v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Another. These appeals challenged the City Civil Court's order dated 27th September 2024 refusing ad-interim relief in suits concerning structures threatened with demolition by the corporation. As the notice of motion for interim relief remained pending (corporation's reply time extended to 6th February 2025), the Single Judge declined to record reasons touching the merits, continued the protection against demolition granted on 27th September 2024 until 6th February 2025, permitted the appellants to seek extension of protection if the motion was not heard by then, and disposed of the appeals and the interim applications (as infructuous).

57-58-59-AO-764-765-772-2024.docx

rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 764 of 2024

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2025

AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14393 OF 2024

Mr. Rampyare J. Benbashi

… Appellant/Applicant

Vs.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation … Respondents and Another

WITH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 765 of 2024 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2025 AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14396 OF 2024

Mr. Jaykar Shetty … Appellant/Applicant

Vs.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation … Respondents and Another

WITH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 772 of 2024 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2025 AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14454 OF 2024

Mr. Jitendra G. Kamble

… Appellant/Applicant

Vs.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Respondents

and Another

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.01.07 22:54:09 +0200

1/4

57-58-59-AO-764-765-772-2024.docx

Mr. Manish Galal a/w. Mr. Ankit Shah, Mr. Vidhi Chheda, Mr. Jay Chheda for the Appellant/Applicant.

Mr.Om Suryavanshi i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for the RespondentBMC.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 6^th JANUARY 2025

ORDER :

These appeals are filed for challenging order dated 27^th September 2024 refusing to grant ad-interim relief. When the ad-interim motion was heard corporation had not filed any reply. Hence, the motion was adjourned for filing reply by the corporation. Corporation was granted time to file reply till 25^th January 2025. However, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court directed the corporation not to take coercive action for a period of three weeks. This court has continued the said order granting protection.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respective appellants have filed an application for impleading the original landlord as party defendants to the suit in view of order dated 11^th November 2024 passed by this court.

Learned counsel for the corporation submits that necessary

reply would be filed to the main notice of motion for interim relief

2/4

57-58-59-AO-764-765-772-2024.docx

and the chamber summons on the next date before the City Civil Court.

Notice of motion is still pending hearing before the City Civil Court. Hence, I am not inclined to record any reasons on the rival contention of the parties at this stage, as the same would prejudice the rival contentions of the parties on merits before the City Civil Court.

Since the protection from demolishing the suit structure is operating since 27^th September 2024, I do not see any reason why it should not operate till notice of motion for interim relief is heard finally by the City Civil Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the earlier date of 25^th January 2025 is now further adjourned to 6^th February 2025.

Appeals from order are disposed of by passing the following order :

(i) The protection granted by the City Civil Court on 27^th September 2024 shall continue till the next date i.e. 6^th February 2025.

(ii) The appellants would be at liberty to make appropriate

3/4

57-58-59-AO-764-765-772-2024.docx

application before the City Civil Court for extension of the order in the event the notice of motion is not heard on the next date. If the application is filed for extension of interim protection, the same shall be favourably considered, if the notice of motion is not heard on the next date.

All the appeals from orders are disposed of in the above terms.

In view of disposal of the appeals from orders, interim applications are disposed of as infructuous.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

4/4