Bombay High Court
Willingdon View Co-Operative Hsg ... vs Sunil B. Jhaveri H.U.F. on 6 August, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
2025:BHC-OS:12827-DB
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
915-IAL 24138-25 IN WP 3078-24.DOC
VARTAK Date:
2025.08.06
21:06:11
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L.) NO. 24138 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3078 OF 2024
Willingdon View Co-op. Hou. Soc. Ltd. ...Applicant
In the matter of
Sunil B. Jhaveri H.U.F. ...Petitioner
Vs
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Pakale, Senior Advocate, Mr.
Ziyad Madon, Mr. Ravi Gandhi, Mr. Prathamesh Jadhav i/b. Kanga & Co. for
Applicant and for Respondent No.8 in WP.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Ms. Shradha
Achliya, Ms. Diksha Shetty i/b. AAK Legal for Petitioner.
Mr. S. U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rupali Adhate i/b. Ms. Komal
Punjabi for BMC.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE: 06 AUGUST 2025.
P.C.
1. On 15 July 2025, this Court had passed a detailed order on the writ
petition, and more particularly considering that in regard to the building in
question, 17 to 34 floors are occupied without any occupancy certificate. It is in
such context, we vacated the ad-interim order passed on the petition on 20 March
2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. We ordered that the occupants
of floors 17 to 34 shall vacate their respective tenements within two weeks from
the day a copy of our order dated 15 July 2025 is made available. We also ordered
that in the event the occupants of 17 to 34 floors do not vacate their tenements,
the Municipal Corporation shall proceed to take an appropriate action
06 August 2025
915-IAL 24138-25 IN WP 3078-24.DOC
in accordance with law qua such occupants in regard to which notices were
already issued long time back. We are informed that the time as granted by this
Court to vacate the tenements expired on 02 August 2025.
2. The applicant contends that our order dated 15 July 2025 was assailed by
the applicant before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20175 of 2025 which came to be dismissed in terms of
the following order:-
"1. Exemption Applications are allowed.
2. Having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials available on record, we are
of the view that we should not interfere with a very well-considered, bold
and lucid judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay.
3. We appreciate the concern expressed by the High Court.
4. We also appreciate the courage and conviction exhibited by the
High Court in taking stern steps against such unauthorized constructions.
Sympathy towards the occupiers of such flats on the ground of hardship
and difficulties at the end of the Court would be thoroughly misplaced.
At the end of the day, the rule of law must prevail.
5. If the petitioners want some time to vacate the premises, they
may go back to the High Court and make a request.
6. High Court shall ensure that all the directions are scrupulously
complied with. Necessary legal action shall also be taken against the
wrongdoers and erring officials if any.
7. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
3. On the aforesaid backdrop, the applicant is before the Court in the present
application praying for the following two reliefs:-
"a. grant an extension of a period of 12 (twelve) weeks to the
Applicant Society to comply with the directions contained in the
Judgment and Order dated 15th July 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.
3078 of 2024.
06 August 2025
915-IAL 24138-25 IN WP 3078-24.DOC
b. direct Respondent Authorities, including Respondent No. 3, to
conduct a site inspection of the Society Building to verify the
compliances effected by the Applicant Society for the purpose of
processing the Fire NOC."
4. At the outset, considering the orders passed by the Supreme Court and
more particularly the contents of paragraph 4, we are of the clear opinion that the
present application can be considered insofar as the prayer clause (a) is concerned.
Mr. Madon, learned senior counsel for the applicant has fairly accepted this
position and on instructions, states that prayer clause (b) would not be pressed.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to
accept prayer (a) as made. However, only on pure humanitarian consideration
and quite unwillingly, we grant further extension of time of three weeks from
today to the occupants of 17 to 34 floors to vacate their respective tenements. An
undertaking to that effect be placed on record of this Court within two days from
today. Copy of the undertaking be also furnished on the date of its filing to the
Municipal Corporation. Subject to such undertaking being furnished, we permit
the said occupants to continue to occupy their respective flats for a period of three
weeks from today, which shall be at their own risk and consequences, in the event
of any untoward incident as already observed in the earlier order. Ordered
accordingly.
6. We may also observe that in the event any of the occupants/members do
not comply with the orders of furnishing an undertaking within two days from
today, the Municipal Corporation shall take such appropriate action to seal the
flats of those occupants who have not furnished the undertaking and all this shall
be at the costs of the said occupants.
06 August 2025
915-IAL 24138-25 IN WP 3078-24.DOC
7. With the aforesaid observations, the interim application stands disposed of.
We grant liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application in the event
any other reliefs are to be sought in the present proceedings or in any
independent proceedings, including the relief as prayed for in prayer clause (b).
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
06 August 2025
