Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM no.844-2018 L.C.SU STAMP no.3118-2018
CNR MHCC01-002933-2018
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.844 OF 2018
IN
L.C. SUIT STAMP NO.3118 OF 2018
Mr. Mukesh Mehta ]...Plaintiff.
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai. ]... Defendant
Coram : M.S. Deshpande, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 3rd March, 2018.
Mr. Krishna Singh, advocate for plaintiff.
Mrs. Patil, advocate for defendant.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff claims to be an owner of suit building namely
Surya Kiran Building of P.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai has taken out the
notice of motion seeking interim preventive relief for restraining the
defendant Corporation from demolishing the notice structure pursuant
to the impugned notice dated 8.1.2018 and order dated 16.2.2018.
2. According to the plaintiff, in order to cure some hygiene
issues the common toilet was subdivided. Subdivision is not violative of
the provisions of MMC Act. The action initiated by the defendant is
-- 1 of 5 --
2 NM no.844-2018 L.C.SU STAMP no.3118-2018
based on the complaints made by the tenants' associations. According
to the plaintiff, the defendant has not applied the mind to the
documents placed on record by the plaintiff in reply to the impugned
notice.
3. On the other hand, the defendant by filing a reply and
copies of documents has opposed to grant adinterim reliefs. According
to the defendant, the plaintiff has not produced any documents showing
authorization of the notice structure or even anything to treat the same
as tolerated one.
4. Heard the respective advocates at length. Perused the
copies of documents placed on record by respective parties.
5. The impugned notice issued under Section 351 of MMC Act
dated 8.1.2018 prima facie alleges that the plaintiff has carried out
unauthorized construction of toilet block by constructing brick walls
and also constructed ladicobaladi slab on 8.1.2018 of the dimensions
stated in the notice. The plaintiff replied the said notice on 2.2.2018
submitting that in order to provide separate toilets for ladies and gents,
the common toilet which was in existence earlier has been subdivided.
No additional FSI has been consumed and no change of user has been
made. The impugned order dated 16.2.2018 prima facie shows that the
concerned designated officer after going through the aforesaid reply has
come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not submitted anything to
prove authorization of the notice work like building proposal, sanction
plan or permission etc. Thus, designated officer has directed to remove
the notice structure forthwith which resulted into institution of the suit
and filing of this notice of motion.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 NM no.844-2018 L.C.SU STAMP no.3118-2018
6. The defendant Corporation has filed the copy of complaint
letter dated 13.9.2017 sent by the tenants' association. In the said
complaint letter various allegations regarding damaging the structure of
the suit building are made. That apart, the copy of notice dated
21.11.2017 issued under Section 488 prima facie shows that in
furtherance of the said complaint letter, the defendant Corporation
intimated the plaintiff about the inspection of the suit building to be
conducted on 22.11.2017. The copy of first inspection report shows
that unauthorized construction of toilet block and slab in ladicobaladi
has been carried out. The inspection report is accompanied with a
sketch map and photographs showing the work of toilet blocks. The
plaintiff has also produced the photographs showing that the work has
been completed.
7. It was necessary on the part of the plaintiff, he being
landlord to produce the building plan to show prima facie existence of
a toilet block originally, which according to him is now subdivided for
the reasons stated in the plaint. The plaintiff has also not produced any
permission sought by the defendant Corporation. Similarly, he has not
produced documents like assessment extract etc. or other documents
showing existence and authorization of the said structure. The plaintiff
has alternatively prayed in this notice of motion for allowing him to
apply for regularization of the said work. Prima facie there is a
question as to why the plaintiff is waiting for the orders of this Court to
move such application when the matter is pending since last three
months under consideration of the defendant Corporation.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 NM no.844-2018 L.C.SU STAMP no.3118-2018
8. Thus, prima facie there is nothing placed on record to
support the claim of the plaintiff and call for the intervention of this
Court by granting adinterim reliefs. Therefore, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
1. Adinterim relief is rejected.
2. Notice of Motion no.844 of 2018 is made returnable on
9.4.2018.
Sd/
(M.S. Deshpande)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dated: 03.03.2018
Dictated on : 03/03/2018.
Transcribed on : 05/03/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 06/03/2018
-- 4 of 5 --
5 NM no.844-2018 L.C.SU STAMP no.3118-2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 09.03.2018 At 01.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. V. U. Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. M. S. Deshpande
C.R. no.05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
03.03.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
06.03.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
09.03.2018
-- 5 of 5 --