Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.453/2020 1 Date : 4.7.2025
MHCC010011682020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 453 OF 2020
IN
L.C.SUIT NO.3407 of 2019
Mr. Adish Gangaram Sakpal : … Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & 6
Ors.
: … Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances :-
Adv. Redekar for plaintiff.
Adv. Apurva Dalal for defendant No.1 to 4/MCGM.
Adv. Suraj Kudalkar for defendant no.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.R. PATARE
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
Heard on : 4.7.2025
Decided on : 4.7.2025
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open court)
1. From the pleadings and documents, following points arise for
determination and findings thereon for the reasons are recorded as
under:
Sr.
No.
Points Finding
1. Whether plaintiff has made out prima facie
case for grant of injunction order as prayed?
..In negative
2. Whether balance of convenience lies in
favour of plaintiff?
..In negative
3. Whether plaintiff suffer irreparable loss? ..In negative
4. What Order? ..As per final
order
-- 1 of 5 --
NM No.453/2020 2 Date : 4.7.2025
R E A S O N S
As to Point No.1 to 3:-
2. Perused pleadings, evidence and heard Advocates for the parties.
3. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff under Order 39
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking order of injunction
restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from hutment
No.14, Chawl No.3, Cement Godown Compound, Bellasis Road, Tardeo,
Mumbai (hereinafter referred as ‘Suit premises’ for short).
4. According to the plaintiff, he is protected slum dweller in respect
of suit premises. The father of the plaintiff Gangaram Sakpal was Class
IV employee of BMC. Suit premises was allotted in the name of father
of the plaintiff as a vacant land tenancy on payment of nominal rent.
The father of the plaintiff expired in the year 1998. The plaintiff
continued to occupy the suit premises. BMC also collected rent from the
father of the plaintiff. In the year 1992, Ward Officer also certified that
suit structure is not service quarter. The plaintiff further claims that suit
structure cannot be acquired or demolished without providing
alternative accommodation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged
notice dt. 21.9.2019. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff would
submit that suit premises was allotted in the name of father of the
plaintiff in the capacity of tenant of vacant land. The father of the
plaintiff paid rent. He further pointed out that HRA was not deducted
from the salary of the father of the plaintiff. The Learned Advocate
made reference to the correspondence and minutes of the meeting and
tried to demonstrate that plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises in
his own right as a tenant of vacant land and cannot be dispossessed or
evicted without providing alternative accommodation. He would further
submit that the notices issued by the officers of BMC are contrary to
-- 2 of 5 --
NM No.453/2020 3 Date : 4.7.2025
their own record and therefore, officers of BMC be restrained from
evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises.
5. On the other hand, it is defence of the defendant/BMC that suit
premises was allotted to father of the plaintiff as a service quarter. The
defendant has denied the right of the plaintiff to occupy the suit
premises. The learned Advocate for the defendant made reference to
Demand Register of the year 1983 and 1994 and tried to demonstrate
that the service quarter was allotted in the name of the father of the
plaintiff. Learned Advocate for the defendant would submit that
plaintiff is not having any right to occupy the suit premises. She would
further submit that the suit premises is required for construction of
bridge. She further pointed out that in case any relief is granted in
favour of the plaintiff that would affect the public project and lastly,
requested for rejection of Notice of Motion.
6. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff was class IV employee of the
BMC. The suit premises is situated in the vacant land of BMC. The
father of the plaintiff is retired from the service of BMC. The father of
the plaintiff is not alive. From the Demand Register for the year 1983, it
is seen that father of the plaintiff was occupying suit premises. It is seen
that suit premises was allotted on condition that the claimant shall hand
over the land without claiming any alternative accommodation or
compensation. From the entry made in the Demand Register for the
year 1994-95, it is seen that suit premises was allotted to father of the
plaintiff in the capacity of employee of defendant/BMC and not in the
capacity of the tenant. It is settled that employee can occupy servant
quarter subject to the service conditions. The employee cannot claim
any right/title by any way in the premises allotted by the employer for
residential purpose. According to the plaintiff, his father was tenant of
-- 3 of 5 --
NM No.453/2020 4 Date : 4.7.2025
vacant land. However, no reliable and convincing document is produced
on record to establish that father of the plaintiff was accepted as a
tenant of the defendant/BMC. The rent receipts relied on behalf of the
plaintiff are not sufficient to conclude that father of the plaintiff was
accepted as a tenant of vacant land of the defendant/BMC. From the
notice, it is seen that rent amount is also due and recoverable from the
plaintiff. Admittedly, suit premises is required for infrastructure project
of the BMC i.e. for the purpose of construction of bridge. The plaintiff
has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of any relief. In case
of grant of any relief, the defendant will suffer irreparable loss. The suit
premises is required for infrastructure project. The balance of
convenience lies in favour of the defendants/BMC. In the result, Point
No.1 to 3 are answered in the negative and following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 453 of 2020 is hereby rejected.
2. Notice of Motion No. 453 of 2020 is disposed off with no order as
to costs.
(R.R. Patare)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Dt.:4.7.2025. Gr. Mumbai,
Directly Dictated on : 4.7.2025
Signed on : 4.7.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
NM No.453/2020 5 Date : 4.7.2025
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: B.S.Parab
Upload date and time:5.7.2025 at 11.35 a.m.
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R.R.Patare, Court No.8
Date of Pronouncement of
Order
4.7.2025
Order signed by P.O. on 4.7.2025
Order uploaded on 5.7.2025
-- 5 of 5 --