Bombay High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Mominpura Co Operative Housing ... on 26 August, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, G.S. Patel
2 rpwl89-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
TRUSHA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
2021.08.27
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.89 OF 2019
15:37:04
+0530 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2019
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..... Petitioners
Vs.
Mominpura Co-operative Housing Society
Limited (Proposed) and Ors. .... Respondents
Mr.Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Oorja Dhond for the
MCGM
Mr.Arshad Shaikh I/b Abdul Bari Ansari for the Ori.
Respondents
CORAM: K.K.TATED &
G.S.PATEL, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 26, 2021
(IN CHAMBER AT 2.15 P.M.)
P.C.
. Heard.
2. We have condoned the delay by our order dated
12.08.2021.
3. We have heard Mr.Sakhare, the learned Senior
Advocate for the M.C.G.M. and Mr.Shaikh for the
Mohite 1/3
2 rpwl89-19.odt
Respondents. The Review Petition seeks review of our order
dated 09.07.2019 at Exhibit 'I' from page 165 to 172. One of
us (Mr.G.S.Patel, J.) was a member of Bench that passed the
order.
4. Mr.Sakhare's submission is that the question is not of
eviction of the Municipal tenants from the building in
question but on the contrary is in regard to the demolition of
dilapidated premises for the purpose of reconstruction. He
submits that all tenants will be re-accommodated in the re-
constructed building as per the extant M.C.G.M. policy. His
apprehension is that any action that the M.C.G.M. takes in
this regard, whether under its Circular dated 25.05.2018 in
regard to guidelines for declaring private municipal building
in the C-1 category (Dangerous / unsafe), or under section
354 of the M.C.G.M. Act, 1988, should not be held or seen to
be contrary to law.
5. We are unable to appreciate this submission. The
order under review makes it clear that the M.C.G.M. was/is
fully at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, and in
paragraph 8 observed thus:
"8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the
writ petition succeeds. The notices issued to the
petitioners are quashed and set aside. Rule is
made absolute in these terms. The Municipal
Corporation, however, is free to take recourse to
such legal provisions and power as are conferred in
it by law. It can evict the petitioners from the
premises by taking recourse to law and not
Mohite 2/3
2 rpwl89-19.odt
otherwise."
6. Thus, whatever action M.C.G.M. wishes to take, must
be in accordance with law, whether this relates to
reconstruction of the building after demolition or
accommodation of tenants in transit accommodation
followed by accommodation in the reconstructed building.
The M.C.G.M. is at liberty to avail all remedies available to
it. This is in fact, precisely what the judgment under review
says.
7. With this observation, we dispose of the Review
Petition. We do not find any ground on merits to interfere
and we do not believe that there is a cause to review under
Section 114 or Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
8. At this stage, Mr.Shaikh tells us that there is a
proposal by the Municipal tenants for said redevelopment
through a developer.
9. Mr.Sakhare states this is under consideration and in
process, including preparation of the Annexure - 2 list. The
statement is noted and accepted.
10. The review petition is disposed of in these terms. No
costs.
(G.S.PATEL, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)
Mohite 3/3
