Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010098312019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL C0URT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3616 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1923 OF 2019
CNR No. MHCC010098312019
Mr. Anisuddin Mohammed Jamil
R/at: Ahmed Building, 2nd Floor, Room No. 30,
M.A. Road, Madanpura, Mumbai 400 008.
... Plaintiff
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Head Office , opposite Chhatrapati Shivaji
Terminus, Mumbai, Maharashtra400 001.
.. Defendants
Appearance:
Adv. A.R. Pandey for the Plaintiff.
Adv.Smt. Vidya Vyavahare for MCGM/ defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR ADHOC JUDGE
SMT. A.H. KASHIKAR
CITY CIVIL COURT, GR. BOMBAY
(C.R. NO.05).
DATE : 02.05.2022
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion for grant of
interim relief, thereby, restraining defendants, their servants, agents
-- 1 of 19 --
2 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
and representatives etc. from taking any action, pursuant to the notice
under section 351 of MMC Act bearing No. E/DO2E/213/351MMC
ACT/E51NO1/11.3.2019 dated 11.3.2019 and speaking order bearing
no. E/DO2E/213/351/MMC ACT/ E51NO1/11.3.2019 dtd. 11.3.2019,
dtd. 9.5.2019 passed by the Designated officer, Executive Engineer (B
& F), E ward in respect of alleged unauthorized construction of
mezzanine floor admeasuirng 14.65 m X 5.80 m and 2.65 m from roof
level and unauthorized construction of loft for water tank admeasuring
1.70 m X 1.30 m having hight 2.10 m from ground floor in the passage
of Hotel Delhi Zayaka, Shop no. 1 and 1A, M.S. Ali Road, Kamathipura,
Mumbai.
2. The aforesaid details of alleged unauthorized construction
are given in the impugned notice dtd.11.3.2019. The plaintiff has
prayed for protection against the action of defendants through interim
orders in terms of prayer ClauseA of this notice of motion.
3. The defendant has appeared and filed affidavit in reply/
written statement alongwith documents on record opposing the
contents of the application and strongly agitating against the proposed
interim relief.
4. Heard advocate for the plaintiff and defendant at length
and perused record. Perused notice of motion, affidavit in support of
said motion, suit plaint, documents produced by plaintiff as well as
defendant.
5. The plaintiff has filed affidavit in rejoinder to the reply filed
by the defendants. In the notice of motion as well as rejoinder, it is
-- 2 of 19 --
3 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
pointed out by the plaintiff that he is not the tenant of the suit premises
upon which the impugned notice has been issued by the defendant. It is
specifically contended that the notice action is totally false, perverse
and unwarranted . It is perverse as the same is issued without following
principles of natural justice and due process of law. It is specifically
submitted that prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in
favour of plaintiff. If he succeeds to show that his property is being
wasted by the defendant, he is entitled to get injunction order. The
Municipal Corporation has not appointed Mr.Nitin Aarte as a designated
officer for issuing notice under section 351 of MMC Act. The
notification of Municipal Corporation dtd. 4.4.2013 authorizing him to
exercise the powers under section 351 of MMC Act is not exist.
Therefore, there is no such empowerment by the municipal
commissioner to Mr. Nitin Aarte, who had issued notice in question.
Therefore, the notice is null and void and without jurisdiction. The
action taken by the defendant is politically motivated on the basis of
false complaint lodged by Chhoti Musjid Trust. In fact, no such illegal
alteration and addition to the existing loft is carried out by the plaintiff.
The notice is not issued to the so called landlord of the suit premises.
The Chhota Musjid Trust wanted to compel the plaintiff to vacate the
suit premises and therefore they joined hands with the Sunni Muslim
Chhota Kabrasthan, who had bigger premises adjacent to the plaintiff’s
premises. The complainant did not get any material to harass him,
therefore they started making allegations that the mezzanine floor and
loft were illegally and unauthorized constructed by him. However, such
construction is not made by them. Earlier also the defendant took notice
action against the plaintiff by inspecting the premises on dtd.2.2.2019
and held that unauthorized addition and alteration is done by the
plaintiff by constructing the wall of 3 fts. Hight upto slab level.
-- 3 of 19 --
4 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
However, on the day of inspection they inspected the mezzanine floor
also , but could not dispute authorization of the mezzanine floor.
Therefore, they restricted the notice action only in respect of 3 fts. Wall.
The wall as well as mezzanine floor are in existence right from the
beginning. Therefore, earlier notice action is withdrawn by the
defendant. It is pointed out by the plaintiff that they have carried out
normal tenable repairs and no unauthorized construction was carried
out by them. Now the defendants have again purported to inspect the
suit premises on dtd. 11.3.2019 and issued notice on the same day. The
notice has been issued without any inquiry, without any jurisdiction and
without any documentary evidence. The defendants have purposely and
malafidely had not described the suit premises property in the notice
under section 351 of MMC Act. The mezzanine floor is in existence in
Shop no. 1, since from the beginning and shop No 1A is totally
different and independent structure. The water tank is also a different
structure. The plaintiff has pointed out that earlier also the defendant
had issued similar notice to the plaintiff on dtd. 17.4.1979. The MMC
had issued notice to the earlier occupier on 17.9.1965 in respect of
partition wall on the mezzanine floor on the suit premises. Notice reply
was given by the plaintiff which was found satisfactory by the defendant
therefore they had withdrawn said notice action under section 351 of
MMC. The mezzanine floor is situated in the suit premises since from
that time. Documents are placed on record by the plaintiff which says
that mezzanine floor of the suit premises is old and exists prior to
datum line and cannot be termed as illegal and unauthorized
construction. Therefore, the notice action on the basis of same ground is
bad in law.
6. Above all it is said, that the defendant have not brought
-- 4 of 19 --
5 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
any document on record to prima facie show that said mezzanine floor
was not there in existence earlier when he had taken the suit premises.
He took the premises on dtd. 20.12.1993 and there was already existing
mezzanine floor the construction of which is legal and authorized. In
said circumstances, the notice action is false and frivolous, therefore
liable to be dismissed.
7. In support of all the above contentions the plaintiff has produced
various documents on record such as :
1.Copy of letter of surrender and Rent Receipt clearly showing
petitioner is lawful tenant in respect of suit premises no.1.
2. Copy of tenancy agreement clearly showing petitioner is lawful
tenant in respect of suit premises no.2.
3. Copy of shop and establishment license and electric meter bill
in respect of the suit premises no.1.
4. Copy of conducting agreement dated 27th December, 2013
between the tenant and Delhi Zaika restaurant.
5. Copy of notice dated 02.02.2019 issued by Assistant
Commissioner E ward, BMC.
6. Copy of reply dated 5th February, 2019 to said Notice dated
02.02.2019.
7. Copy of Speaking order dated 07.02.2019 bearing reference no
84394 issued by the defendant.
8. Copy of notice dated 11.03.2019 issued by Assistant
Commissioner E ward, BMC.
9. Copy of Reply given by the plaintiff through his advocate
alongwith all requisite documents dated 19.03.2019 to said
Notice.
10. Copy of speaking order bearing reference No. 86992 dated
-- 5 of 19 --
6 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
09.05.2019 issued by the defendant.
11. Photographs of both the suit premises prior to 2001.
12. Copy of plan issued by the office of superintendent Bombay
City Survey and land records also clearly shows the existence of
suit premises no.2.
8. The advocate for plaintiff has argued the notice of motion
at length and tendered plenty of authorities on record, which are 36 in
number in order to substantiate their claim for grant of interim relief.
9. In reply, the defendant has supported the notice action
saying that they found unauthorized construction over the suit premises
and therefore notice under section 351 of MMC has been rightfully
issued. The defence regarding non issuance of statutory notice under
section 527 of BMC Ct, 1988 and amended section 515A of the Act has
been taken with a prayer for dismissal of the suit. It is specifically
contended that the designated officer has rightfully issued the notice
having necessary authority to issue the notice. The earlier notice dtd.
2.2.2019 under section 354 A of the MMC cat was rightly issued for
ongoing unauthorized addition alteration by constructing brick wall
above the existing wall of the hight of 3 fts. upto slab level as the
construction was made without permission of the competent authority.
The plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence in respect of
unauthorized construction therefore speaking order was passed on dtd.
7.2.2019, and then the defendants on dtd. 20.2.2019 demolished
ongoing unauthorized construction as Hotel Delhi Zayaka, Shop No. 1
and 1A, M.A. Ali Raod, Kamathipura, Mumbai. However, thereafter
again the defendant received various complaints against the plaintiff
regarding loft converted to mezzanine floor, slanting shape of roof
-- 6 of 19 --
7 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
converted to flat high roof, 8 Airconditioner on roof top, passage and
many other encroachments adjacent area at the hotel. At the time of
inspection dtd. 11.3.2019 they found the disputed unauthorized
construction which was carried out in the hotel without permission of
Competent Authority, therefore by following due process of law, the
notice was given to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has not
submitted any satisfactory and conclusive proof to prove the
construction of notice structure prior to the datum line for the tolerating
commercial structure which is there on dtd. 1.4.1962 or to prove that
the notice structure is authorized one constructed as per plan approved
by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the speaking order has been
rightfully passed on dtd. 9.5.2019. The documents produced by the
plaintiff do not prove authorization of notice structure. The plaintiff
failed to produce approved plan, the permission granted in favour of
plaintiff for notice structure or any other authenticate document. In
absence of such authentic documentary evidence the notice structure is
unauthorized and liable to be demolished. The plaintiff miserably show
the prima facie and balance of convenience and therefore he is not
entitled for any interim relief.
10. In support aforesaid submissions the defendant has
produced certain documents on record such as :
1. Complaint, Panchanama and Inspection Report alongwith
photographs of ongoing construction.
2. Notice dtd. 02.02.2019.
3. Speaking order dtd. 7.02.2019.
4. Demolition report alongwith photographs dtd. 20.2.2019.
5. Complaint, Inspection Report dtd. 11.3.2019 alongwith
photographs.
-- 7 of 19 --
8 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
6. Notice dtd. 11.3.2019.
7. Speaking order dtd. 9.5.2019.
11. From the facts and circumstances of the case and material
produced on record following points arose for my determination and
my findings there on are as under for the reasons stated therein :
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether Prima facie is case is
established by the plaintiff ?
No
2 Whether balance of convenience lies
in favour of plaintiff?
No
3 Whether plaintiff proves that in the
event of failure to grant interim
injunction, Irreparable loss would be
caused to him?
No
4. What Order? Notice of motion is
dismissed as per final
order.
R E A S O N S
As to Point nos. 1 to 3:
12. All these points are interlinked with each other, hence for
the sake of convenience and to avoid repeation of certain points, all are
discussed simultaneously. While deciding the issue of grant of refusal of
temporary which is a equitable relief, it is necessary to consider whether
plaintiff has proved prima facie case. If the prima facie case is
established, the balance of convenience would naturally lay in favour of
plaintiff and the irreparable loss would automatically follow.
13. If, the issue of authorization of notice structure which is the
subject matter of notice u/sec. 351 of MMC Act is focused, we have to
-- 8 of 19 --
9 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
consider, whether prima facie notice structure is constructed with
permission of Competent Authority or not. In the present matter,
plaintiff has challenged the impugned notice and impugned order
passed u/s. 351 of MMC Act. Therefore, in order to seek protection by
way of interim relief, the plaintiff must prima facie establish that either
the notice structure as it exist today at the site was in existence prior to
datum line or it is in accordance with the permission granted by the
Competent Authority i.e. a structure made with permission or a
tolerable structure.
14. The term ' Sufficient Cause' used in section 351 of MMC Act
must be explained by the plaintiff, which means that he has to show
that his structure is made in consonance with the provisions of section
342 and 347 of the MMC Act and therefore deserves to be saved from
the demolition action proposed by the defendants. In order to explain
such sufficient cause, it is the duty of plaintiff to produce sanctioned
plan or any authentic permission from the Competent Authority for
construction/erection of the notice structure, but in the present case,
plaintiff failed to produce such authentic document either before the
Designated Officer or before the court.
15. The advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that
the alleged notice is ultra virus and nullity, as the same is issued by the
officer not authorized as per the provisions of law. It is stated that the
notice has been issued by the officer who is not the Designated Officer
under the MMC Act and the powers are not deligated to him by the
Commissioner. Therefore, notice action is totally illegal. Notice is nullity
and no action can be taken on the basis of the said impugned notice.
Therefore, prima facie case lies in their favour.
-- 9 of 19 --
10 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
16. As, it transpires from the record the plaintiff’s advocate has
argued that the corporation has taken action only on the basis of
complaint received from some persons. The plaintiff is a tenant . The
construction of mezzanine floor exist there since from the beginning.
The defendant must establish that there was no structure on the spot
and it was constructed later on without permission of the Competent
Authority. The basic structure is not disputed by the defendant also. The
dispute is regarding construction of mezzanine floor. The alleged brick
wall came to be demolished by the defendant on dtd. 20.2.2019. That
time they issued notice only for said brick wall and demolished the
same. They did not find mezzanine floor on that day. It means that it
was not there and immediately thereafter they issued second notice on
dtd. 11.3.2019 in respect of alleged unauthorized construction of
mezzanine floor. The same officer inspected the premises, but two
different notices came to be issued. The defendant ought to have filed
the assessment record and sanction plan, but the same is not placed on
record by the defendants. The negative burden of proof cannot be
placed on plaintiff’s shoulder. There is no proof that the construction of
mezzanine floor is illegal and defendant miserably failed to show on the
basis of which record they issued the notice.
17. The record shows that in support of this contention the
plaintiff has placed certain photographs on record and stated that the
mezzanine floor was already exists prior to the issuance of notice and
even prior to the execution of tenancy agreement with the owner of the
suit premises.
18. The Ld. Advocate for plaintiff has placed reliance on following
authorities:
-- 10 of 19 --
11 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
1. Zenit Mataplast V.s State of Maharashtra & Ors., SC 2009.
2. M.P. Housing Board V.s Anil Kumar Khiwani, SC2005.
3. Dalpat Kumar & Anr V.s Prahlad Singh & ors.,SC1991.
4. Prakash Singh V.s State of Haryana & Ors., Punjab & Haryana
HC,2002.
5. Dashrath Sahadeo Khade v.s. MCGM & Ors., BHC2004.
6. M. Gurudas and Ors V.s Rasranjaj and Ors., SC/8491/2006.
7. Joseph Dominic & Anr V.s MCGM
8. Pali hill Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd V.s MCGM
9. State of Haryana and Ors. V.s State of Punjab and Ors.,
SC/0524/2004.
10. Kamlabai Pandurang Sonawane V.s MCGM A.O No. (St.)
18179/17.
11. Mahesh Nandlal Asrani V.s MCGM
12. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. And Ors. V.s Coca Cola Company
and Ors., C.A. No. 6839, 6840/1995.
13. Indian Nut Products & Ors V.s Union of India & Ors.
14. Maria Margaridasequeria Fernandes and Ors V.s Erasmo Jack
De Sequeria (dead) through Lrs., SLP © No. 15382/2009.
15. Mansharam V.s Dhule Nagar Palika
16. Dhulabhai & Ors. V.s State of MP & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 78.
17. Mohd Yusuf Abdul Sattar V.s MCGM
18. The State of Tamil Nadu V.s Ramalingam Samigal Madam,
AIR SC 794.
19. Masood Ahmed Siddiqui V.s MCGM, A.O. No. 57/2013.
20. The State of Andhra Pradesh V.s Manjeti Laxmi Kantarao, AIR
2000 SC 2220.
21. Anand Prasad Agarwalla v.s Tarkeshwar Prasad Agarwalla,
V882883 2001 SC.
-- 11 of 19 --
12 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
22. Rt. Rev. Dr. Ignatius D'cunha and Ors. V.s Rev. Fatherdenis
S/o Chittaranjan Kamath, BHC.
23. S. Vanathan Muthuraja V.s Ramakngam alias Krishnamurthy
Gurukkal & Ors., 1998(1)396 SC.
24. Royal Palms (India) Pvt Ltd and Ors V.s Bharat Shantilal Shah
and Anr., A.O. No. 113 of 2009. BHC.
25. State of U.P & Ors V.s Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh &
Ors., 1989,2 SCC 505.
26. Ajay Mittal Industrial Premises Coop Society V.s Raj
Publicity, 2005 Vol 107(2) Bom. L.R.269.
27. Mausharammirchumal Sangtani etc V.s Dhulenagarpalika
(Municipal Council)Dhule, 1994, VOL 96, BOM LR 720.
28. The Deity Mandir Nandi Keshwar Mahaev etc. V.s Gram
Sabha, 1973 AIR (HP) 2.
29. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur V.s Smt Sohni Devi and
Anr., AIR 1996 RAJ 73, 1996(1)WLC 168.
30. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. V.s. Dayanand Margeppal
Pedde and Ors.,F.A. No. 1411 of 2004 , BHC.
31. Jaiprakash Vishwanath Jaiswal and Ors. V.s Municipal
Corporation of Cities of Kalyan and Dombivali & Ors., W.P. Nos.
6046, 6047 and 6048 of 2018.
32. Mohd Yusuf Abdul Sattar v.s MCGM, A.O. N.O 712/1996.
33. Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai & Ors. V.s. M/s.
Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Ltd., SC CA 7627/2019,
24.10.2019.
34. Vadilal M. Trevadia V.s MCGM, W. P.No. 1447/1995 dtd.
9.6.2020.
35. T.Takano V.s Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr.
C.A.No. 487 of 2022 dtd. 18.2.2022.
-- 12 of 19 --
13 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
36. Abdul Karim Mansuri V.s MCGM W.P. (L) no. 2237 of
2013.
19. I have minutely gone through these authorities. It is to be
considered whether the authorities cited supra are applicable to the
present set of facts or not.
20. I have gone through the entire record of the case. The
plaintiff has pointed out various points including the justification for
filing of the suit without issuing section 527 notice to the defendant. To
my mind, at the time of deciding the issue of interim relief, said point
need not be considered in the present preliminarily inquiry. Presently,
in order to consider the necessity of the grant or refusal of the interim
relief it is for the plaintiff to establish that the prima facie case lies in his
favour and therefore, he is entitled for the discretionary equitable relief
of temporary injunction. Upon consideration of the documents placed
on record by the plaintiff, it apperently transpires that the plaintiff is
tenant of the suit premises. It further transpires from the record that
the various complaints were received by the corporation regarding
unauthorized construction allegedly made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also placed the rent receipts to show that he is the tenant of the suit
premises. To my mind the rent receipt do not have any significance at
this stage as this court only deals with the legality of the notices issued
under the MMC Act regarding unauthorized construction. So the notice
action is the subject matter of the present proceeding and it has no
concern with the landlord tenant relationship of plaintiff. This court
cannot decide or declare said relationship while exhausting jurisdiction
under this Act. Hence, I hold that the rent receipts are not sufficient to
establish prima facie case regarding authorized construction in favour
-- 13 of 19 --
14 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
of plaintiff.
21. I have gone through the notice issued by the defendant
under section 351 of the Act. It is for the plaintiff to establish that said
construction was carried out prior to datum line or the same has been
carried out with the permission of Competent Authority. The defendant
has placed the documents before the defendant in quasi judicial
proceeding which taken place before the defendant after issuance of
notice. It reveals that the speaking order dtd.9.5.2019 has been passed
after considering the reply and documents submitted by the plaintiff.
The speaking order dtd. 9.5.2019 make it clear that the Appropriate
Authority has considered all these documents and passed remarks in the
order itself as to how and why said documents are not sufficient to
prove the existence/ authorization of notice structure prior to 1.4.1962,
which is datum for commercial structure. From the explanation of the
term ' Sufficient Cause' used in section 351 MMC Act, prima facie it
appears that the burden is upon the noticee ie plaintiff to show and
prove the notice structure is constructed in accordance with the
provisions of sections 337 or 342 and 347 of the MMC Act and it is
authorized. Here the plaintiff has not produced approved plan of either
suit premises or the notice structure. The documents produced by the
plaintiff do not prove the existence of notice structure as it exist today
at he site prior to datum line or it is authorized. The defendants have
come up with the specific pleading that notice structure is
unauthorized. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, I have arrived at
the conclusion that plaintiff miserably failed to explain the sufficient
cause as termed in section 351 of the MMC Act and there is no
substance in the pleadings averred by the plaintiff. Prima facie notice
structure appears to be authorized one.
-- 14 of 19 --
15 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
22. In the entire record, the plaintiff has come up with the case
that the mezzanine floor was already existed over the suit premises
since from the beginning and therefore it is a tolerable construction
which is exempted from any permission from the competent authority.
However, there is no document on record to show that the notice
structure existed on the spot prior to datum line. It is undisputed that
the earlier notice action taken out by the defendant was regarding the
ongoing construction of brick wall over the mezzanine floor and at that
relevant time there was no whisper in the notice regarding the presence
of mezzanine floor construction which is illegal one. However, this part
is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that the construction of the
mezzanine floor is authorized construction or existed prior to datum
line. Said notice was u/s. 354 A for ongoing construction. The entire
record make it clear that the plaintiff went on showing his legal
possession over the suit premises and tried to shift the burden of proof
on the defendant. However, once the defendant has prima facie issued
notice after preliminary inquiry regarding unauthorized construction, it
is for the plaintiff to prove that said construction is either a tenantable
repairs not requiring prior permission of Competent Authority or is a
tolerable structure or is carried out with the permission of competent
authority. Such fact can be proved by placing the sanction plan on
record which must be within the special knowledge either of the owner
or occupier of the premises. However, unfortunately no such documents
is placed on record by the plaintiff . Therefore, I hold that the plaintiff
miserably failed to establish prima facie case.
23. Undoubtedly, the notice action is to be taken by the
designated officer who appointed under the MMC Act or by the officer
-- 15 of 19 --
16 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
to whom powers are delegated by the Commissioner. In this particular
matter the defendant have produced the copy of the notification of dtd.
11.3.2019 through which the Designated Officer is authorized to take
action against the unauthorized construction and he is appointed a
designated officer under the provisions of MMC Act by the
Commissioner of MCGM. Said notification is sufficient to show that the
notice action has been taken by the duly appointed designated officer.
Therefore, I hold that prima facie there is no substance in the
submission made by the plaintiff, that the notice is bad in law.
24. In fact, as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act the
burden of proof lies on the shoulder of plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff
who is comes before the court to seek relief against the defendants, to
prove prima facie that the construction is authorized by the Competent
Authority. He cannot throw out his burden of proof on others. It is for
him to prove that said construction of notice structure is within the
purview of section 337, 342 and 347 of the MMC Act. No such
document is placed on record by the plaintiff.
25. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has challenged the
impugned notice under section 351 of MMC Act, in order to seek
protection of equitable ad interim relief, it is necessary for the plaintiff
to prima facie show that either the notice structure as it exists today at
the site was in existence prior to datum line or it is inaccordance with
the permission granted by the Competent Authority or as per the
sanction plan. The plaintiff has to establish atleast that the construction
is inaccordance with the provisions of sections 337, 342 and 347 of
MMC Act or it is a tolerable structure. No such documentary proof is
brought on record by the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie I do not find
-- 16 of 19 --
17 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
any substance in the submission made by the plaintiff that the notice
structure already exist on the spot prior to dactum line. Therefore, it
follows that the same is unauthorized construction.
26. Record shows that defendant has take this notice action by
following due process of law. They had inspected the premises, called
upon the plaintiff/owner to produce documents showing authorization
of notice structure, thereafter impugned notice was issued. Even they
have provided opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, considered his
reply and thereafter, passed reasoned impugned speaking order on
dtd.9.5.2019. Therefore, prima facie notice is not unreasonable and the
decision of defendant to issue impugned notice and order does not
appear to be perverse or in excess of authority. The due process of lw is
being followed by the defendants and it is well evident from the record.
27. On perusal of all the documents produced on the record by
the respective parties, I have arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff
miserably failed to establish prima facie case by establishing authorized
construction of the notice structure with the permission of Competent
Authority. At the same time balance of convenience also do not lie in
favour of plaintiff and therefore question of irreparable loss do not
arise. Hence, considering the aforesaid discussion, I hold that no case is
made out by the plaintiff for grant of interim relief and protection
against the notice action. Prima facie it reveals that the plaintiff
miserably failed to establish that he is entitled for the equitable relief.
Above all it transpires that the alleged demolition of notice structure
will not cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff as notice structure is not
authorized construction. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the
relief of interim protection. Accordingly, I have answered point nos.1 to
-- 17 of 19 --
18 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
3 in the negative.
As to point no. 4
28. In view of the negative findings as to point nos.1 to 3, I
hold that the notice of motion do not stand and it is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3616/2019 stands dismissed.
2. The prayer for grant of interim relief stands dismissed.
3. Notice of Motion No. 3616/2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Date: 02.05.2022.
(A.H.KASHIKAR)
ADHOC Judge,
City Civil Court,
Gr.Mumbai.
(Court Room No.05)
Dictated on : 02.05.2022.
Typed on : 02.05.2022.
Signed on : 04.05.2022.
-- 18 of 19 --
19 NM No. 3616/2019 in L.C. Suit No.1923/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
02.05.2022. 6.00 p.m. ( K.M. Rana )
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt. A.H. Kashikar (C.R.No.05)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
02.05.2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
04.05.2022.
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04.05.2022.
-- 19 of 19 --