Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Suit No.3091/2018
...Order on NM No.3365/2019
MHCC010092012019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE of MOTION NO. 3365 of 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 3091 of 2018
Meena Yogesh Shah ....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ….Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C. S. DATIR
(C.R. NO.04).
DATE : 06.07.2026
Appearance:
Advocate Vipul Shukla 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 acting or implementing the impugned
notice dated 08/05/2018 issued under section 351 of MMC Act.
2 According to him, he is in possession of the suit premises
(Garage), admeasuring 210 sq. ft. Carpet Area located at Ghatkoper,
Mumbai. The impugned notice is nullity and Bad in law and can not be
sustained. The suit property is in existence prior to the datum line I.e
1962. It is a Garage being used as Godown. It is assessed by
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Suit No.3091/2018
...Order on NM No.3365/2019
Corporation. The plaintiff has purchased the same from Vijay Shah on
12.07.2002.
3. He has further contended that, he become member of the society
and society also issued share certificate. Plaintiff being owner of the suit
premises, he pays Electricity and Maintenance charges. Even, Municipal
Corporation has assessed property Tax, therefore, the suit structure can
not be said as unauthorized structure. Garage was constructed in the
year 1961-1962. The impugned notice issued by defendant is illegal,
bad in law and perverse. The impugned order is nullity and liable to be
set aside. He lastly prays, Notice of Motion be allowed.
4. Defendant/Corporation has failed to file reply to the NM, thus,
“No reply order has been passed.”
5. Heard argument. Perused record.
6. It appears, the plaintiff has purchased the suit premises from her
predecessor in title ie by Vijay Shah. He has also paid the Court fees and
other legal dues. The Seller has accepted the consideration amount
from the buyer. Property Tax receipt is placed on record. Plaintiff was
put in possession. Mr. Vijay Shah tendered necessary documents in
favour of plaintiff. Even society has entered the name of plaintiff in
share certificate. The certificate issued by the society, it has been
mentioned over there that the society building is constructed in 1961.
Not only this, plaintiff has filed receipt of property tax, wherein, it
reflects the Corporation has assessed Property tax firstly on 01.04.1962.
It shows, the construction was already there. To rebut the averments of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Suit No.3091/2018
...Order on NM No.3365/2019
plaintiff, the defendant has not filed reply to the Notice of Motion. It
means, whatever averments raised by the plaintiff in the plaint and
Notice of Motion can be considered prima-facie correct.
7. No doubt, the defendant can rebut the averments of the
plaintiff during the trial, but, at this juncture, it appears the suit
structure is standing at the disputed place since long and there is no
adverse documents in favour of defendants. Considering the same, I am
of view that, the possession of the plaintiff needs to be protected till
final judgment. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.3365 of 2019 is hereby
allowed.
2. Defendant Corporation is hereby directed not
to take any action in order to demolish the suit
premises in pursuance of impugned notice till
final Judgment of the suit.
(C. S. DATIR)
Judge,
Date: 06/07/2026 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 06/07/2026
Typed on : 06/07/2026
Checked on : 06/07/2026
Signed on : 06/07/2026
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Suit No.3091/2018
...Order on NM No.3365/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
06/07/2026 Typist
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri C. S. DATIR
(Court Room No.04).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 06/07/2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 06/07/2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 06/07/2026
-- 4 of 4 --