Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 1483-19 in Suit No. 931-19
CNR NO.MHCC0100392319
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1483 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 931 OF 2019
Abdul Sattar A.R. Shaikh ....Plaintiff
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ..... Defendants
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 16th April, 2019.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. A. R. Pande for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Rawade for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks temporary injunction
restraining the defendant from demolishing the structure mentioned in
the notice dated 01.04.2019 under Section 354 A of the MMC Act and
the order dated 02.04.2019.
2. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant was carrying
out the unauthorized construction of the structure of 3rd to 8th floor with
ladi coba and RSJ frame work without permission from competent
authority. The plaintiff was accordingly issued notice under Section
354A of the MMC Act. The notice was replied by Abdul Sattar A. R.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 NM 1483-19 in Suit No. 931-19
Shaikh, the plaintiff. It is pointed out that no construction was going
on.
3. Further speaking order was passed on 02.04.2019. It is pointed
out that the notice was not replied. It was pointed out that the plaintiff
had nothing to show that the notice portion is legal.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the tenant of the
suit premises and had received notice on 01.04.2019. It is to be noted
that the he is the tenant of the suit premises in respect of Room no. 45,
8th floor. It is the contention of the defendant that the owner/occupier
tenant/landlord has carried out construction of 3rd floor to 8th floor.
The reply by the tenant points out that the landlord was out of the
station and it is not possible for plaintiff to submit the documents. He
contended that no construction was in progress.
The plaintiff is the tenant of Room no. 45, 8th floor and there is
nothing to infer that he has authority to comment on the constructions
from 3rd floor to 8th floor. It is argument of the plaintiff that the reply by
the tenant /plaintiff to the notice is not considered by the defendant
corporation. It is the own contention of the plaintiff that, he is not
expected to have the documents of the entire building. There is no
justification in respect of the alleged construction in the reply to the
notice by the plaintiff. No prejudice appears to caused to the plaintiff
by notice dated 01.04.2019.
4. The contentions in the notice dated 01.04.2019 are not answered
by the plaintiff in any manner. It appears that the plaintiff had no
justification and authority for the notice issued under Section 354A of
the MMC Act. No fault can be found out in the order.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 NM 1483-19 in Suit No. 931-19
5. In the light of the facts of the case, the plaintiff has failed to made
out the primafacie case. The balance of convenience does not lie in
favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff would not be put to irreparable
loss, if the temporary injunction is refused. In the result, following
order is passed:
ORDER
Notice of motion no. 1483/2019 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 16.04.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated & directly typed on computer on : 16.04.2019
Checked by HHJ on : 22.04.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 22.04.2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 22.04.2019 at 5.51 pm.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. Sanjay N. Yadav
C.R. no. 05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
16.04.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
22.04.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
22.04.2019
-- 3 of 3 --