Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
MHCC010068972019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2510 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.1560 OF 2019
Smt. Geeta Sarin, ....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ….Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C. S. DATIR
(C.R. NO.04).
DATE : 01.09.2026
Appearance:
Advocate Mr. Darshan Jain for plaintiff.
Advocate Ms. Rupali Patil for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion, requesting to
restrain the defendant from demolishing of the suit property in
pursuance of the impugned Notice dated 18/06/2019 under section 351
of the MMC Act.
2. According to the plaintiff, she is owner of the suit premises
at block no.42, room no.6-C, Mulund Colony, Mumbai. (Hereinafter
referred to as ‘suit premises’ for the sake of brevity). According to her,
-- 1 of 6 --
2 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
she acquired the suit premises from one Mohandas under the scheme
for displaced person. Her predecessor in title came to India from
Pakisthan in the year of 1948 and he was allotted Notice premises.
Plaintiff is in possession under the garb of Sanad issued by the
Government of Maharashtra. The suit property is Sanad property
acquired by her predecessor in title. She is also paying property tax.
The suit property is in existence prior to the 1961-62 i.e the in datum-
line, hence, the suit property is protected under the policy of
Corporation. The plaintiff acquired the suit premises consisting ground
plus attic floor. The level of the suit premises is down from the road
level, so the drainage water comes to the Notice structure during the
rainy season. Suit structure is in existence prior to 1961-62 till date and
there is no extension as such.
3. She has further contended that, on 18/06/2019 the
defendant had issued Notice directing to the plaintiff to remove
unauthorized construction existing to the ground floor. She gave reply
to the Notice, stating that, the suit structure is in existence prior to the
datum-line. In fact, there is no illegal or unauthorized structure,
therefore, Notice in question is bad in law. The impugned Speaking
Order dated 29/07/2019 is false and not as per the facts. She prays,
Notice of Motion be allowed as prayed.
4. As against, the defendant has filed reply and resisted the
Notice of Motion, stating that, the averments made therein are not true
and correct. As per section 515A of the MMC Act, the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain and try the impugned Notice. Before filing the
suit, Statutory Notice has not given to the plaintiff under section 527 of
-- 2 of 6 --
3 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
the MMC Act. To issue impugned Notices regarding illegal structure is
executive and administrative act of the Corporation. No valid cause of
action arose to file the suit.
5. Defendant has further contended that, he issued Notice to
the plaintiff for unauthorized vertical extension to the existing ground
floor structure by using brick mansonry wall and ladi coba slab,
admeasuring as shown in the sketch in the inspection report without
permission of the competent authority. In fact, defendant has received
complaint regarding the unauthorized structure of the suit premises in
pursuance of the complaint. Defendant has inspected the suit premises
through their officer on 18/06/2019.
On inspection, the concern officer has found that, the
plaintiff has done unauthorized vertical extension to the existing ground
floor by using brick mansonry wall and ladi coba slab. On site inquiry,
plaintiff did not show any permission or documentary evidence to prove
the authorization of work being carried out by her and thereby, Notice
under section 351 of the MMC Act came to be issued on 18/06/2019.
During the inspection, plaintiff failed to prove the authorization of the
Notice structure, therefore, considering the reply of the plaintiff,
defendant has passed Speaking Order on 29/07/2019. Defendant
failed to file the single document to prove authorization. Defendant has
followed due process of law. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled the
discretionary relief. Hence, Notice of Motion be dismissed with costs.
6. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.
7. It appears, defendant has received complaint regarding the
-- 3 of 6 --
4 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
unauthorized structure of the suit premises. In pursuance of the
complaint, defendant had inspected the suit premises through their
officer on 18/06/2019. On inspection, the concern officer has found
that, the plaintiff has done unauthorized vertical extension to the
existing ground floor by using brick mansonry wall and ladi coba slab.
On site inquiry, plaintiff did not show any permission or documentary
evidence to prove the authorization of work being carried out by her
and thereby, Notice under section 351 of the MMC Act came to be
issued on 18/06/2019.
8. It further appears, during the inspection, plaintiff failed to
prove the authorization of the Notice structure, therefore, considering
the reply of the plaintiff, defendant has passed Speaking Order on
29/07/2019. Defendant failed to file the single document to prove
authorization. Defendant has followed due process of law.
9. It further appears, there is no single documents on record
filed by the plaintiff to show that, the alleged structure has constructed
with permission of the concern authority. Though, it is the main
contention of plaintiff that, the suit structure had been constructed prior
to datum-line, but there is no document to that effect.
It is pertinent to note that, the entire structure is not
disputed (i.e. ground floor). The disputed structure is unauthorized
vertical extension to the existing ground floor structure by using brick
mansonry wall ladi coba -ladi slab, admeasuring 8.2 mtr.(length) X 4.2
mtr.(width) X 2.7 mtr. (height) in BM wall. Though the ground floor
structure might be old one but the same is not Subject matter at this
juncture. The vertical extension on the existing ground floor structure
-- 4 of 6 --
5 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
is unauthorized and plaintiff miserably failed to show that, it is
constructed prior to datum-line or it is constructed with the permission
of the Corporation. Mere ground floor structure is old one, that does
not mean, plaintiff is exempted from taking permission to construct
extension on the ground floor. The documents filed by plaintiff i.e.
water bill, Index-II, assessment receipt, electricity bill, conveyance deed,
Sanad, property card are not the documents to show that, the extension
vertical structure on the ground floor is authorized by the Corporation.
10. Considering the same, I am of view that, the extension
structure is unauthorized and it can not be protected at the mercy of the
plaintiff. Thus, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.2510 of 2019 is hereby
dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
(C. S. DATIR)
Judge,
Date: 01/09/2026 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 01/09/2026
Typed on : 01/09/2026
Checked on : 01/09/2026
Signed on : 01/09/2026
-- 5 of 6 --
6 L.C. Suit No.1560/2019
...Order on NM No.2510/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
01/09/2026 S.S.Sawant (Grade-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri C. S. DATIR
(Court Room No.04).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 01/09/2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 01/09/2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 01/09/2026
-- 6 of 6 --