Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 4523/19 in Suit No. 2792/19. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4523 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010123312019)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 2792 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010108512019)
Mr. Inayatullah Mohd. Hanif Seliya ...Plaintiff
Versus
The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ...Defendant
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2019.
Mr. S.K.Dubey, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Ms. Mhatre, Advocate for Defendant / MCGM.
ORDER
Heard ld. advocate S.K.Dubey for plaintiff at sufficient
length, prayed for adinterim injunction to restrain the defendant to act
in view of notice dated 25/06/2019.
2. Perused reply submitted by MCGM. Heard ld. advocate
Mhatre for MCGM at sufficient length. It is requested to peruse the
photographs that for twice construction came to be demolished.
3. It is not disputed that plaintiff is owner and possessor of
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 4523/19 in Suit No. 2792/19. 2 Order.
area 4700 sq.ft. Unit B5 and B6 on first floor, Narayan Plaza,
Sakinaka, Mumbai. According to plaintiff, impugned notice issued by
defendant is illegal as he is not constructing 25 rooms as mentioned in
notice Page No.57. The nature of construction as mentioned in
schedule is reproduced as follows :
"Unauthorized Construction of 25 rooms ad
measuring 3.04 m x 3.65 m x 3.04 m height
(approximately) each using siporex blocks.
2. I hereby directed you to stop the erection of the
said building/execution of the said work
forthwith."
4. In view of various photographs filed by MCGM vide Exh.2,
inspection report from Page No.1 to 14, it appear that plaintiff has
constructed for about 25 rooms and he runs a hotel. To reply position
as shown in the photos, Mr. S.K.Dubey prayed for short time to show
nature of the suit property.
5. Thereafter Mr. S.K.Dubey submitted the photograph from
outside position of the hotel. He replied that after construction is
completed, what MCGM will acquire by demolition of construction
when we are moving towards "Make In India". He replied that it is a
mere partition and as per D.C.Rules, there is no necessity of permission
for erection of partition.
6. On perusal of all documents submitted by plaintiff, he
obtained the suit property on leave and licence from Mr. Paramjeet
Singh on 02/03/2019. In view of aforesaid discussion and upon
consideration of factual aspect, following points emerges for
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 4523/19 in Suit No. 2792/19. 3 Order.
consideration :
a) There is nothing mentioned in Leave and Licence
Agreement dated 02/03/2019 that suit structure is
containing 25 rooms.
b) In view of plaintiff's intention, plaintiff is trying to erect 25
rooms by using siporex blocks.
c) Admittedly it is not a partition of plywood.
d) There is no intimation to lessor, in respect of change in the
structure.
7. Ld. advocate S.K.Dubey submits that his structure may be
protected and time be provided for regularization of structure. It
appear that the plaintiff intend to get protection of the Court to save
illegal construction done by him. In view of report of demolition and
various photographs dated 31/07/2019 and 01/10/2019, all the rooms
are demolished by the MCGM. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. The case is not fit for adinterim injunction.
2. Defendant to file written statement to expedite hearing on
notice of motion.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 19/12/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 19/12/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 20/12/2019.
3. Signed on : 23/12/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 4523/19 in Suit No. 2792/19. 4 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
23/12/2019. 4.04 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 19/12/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 23/12/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 23/12/2019.
-- 4 of 4 --