Mr. Mani Anthony Nadar vs The Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6764 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mr. Mani Anthony Nadar vs The Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai ... on 13 October, 2025

                                                                     29-ASAO-385-2023.DOC




                                                                                            apn

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.385 OF 2023


                  Mr. Mani Anthony Nadar                                 ... Appellant
                          v/s.
                  The Municipal Corporation of Greater
                  Mumbai & Anr.                                          ... Respondents
                                                    WITH
                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4648 OF 2023
                                                      IN
                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.385 OF 2023
                                                    WITH
                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.469 OF 2018
                                                    WITH
                                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2018
                                                      IN
                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.469 OF 2018
                                                ______________________

                    Ms. Neeta Jadhav, i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent
                    No.1-BMC.
                    Mr. J.S. Kini, a/w Mr. Aum Kini, i/by Ms. Sapna Krishnappa for
                    Respondent No.2 in AO/385/2023 and for Respondent No.4 in
                    AO/469/2018.
                    Mr. Mani Anthony Nadar, Appellant-in-person, present in
         Digitally  AO/385/2023.
         signed by
         ASHWINI H Mr.    Venu Raghavan, Appellant-in-person, present in
ASHWINI GAJAKOSH
H                   AO/469/2018.
GAJAKOSH Date:
         2025.10.14
         10:55:49                           ________________________
        +0530



                                                   Page 1 of 5


                 ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2025                    ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2025 21:19:38 :::
                                                  29-ASAO-385-2023.DOC




                                 CORAM : Kamal Khata, J.

DATED : 13th October 2025.

P.C.:-

Appeal from Order No.385 of 2023

1. The Appellant, who appears in person, seeks further

time to appoint an Advocate.

2. Mr. Kini for the 3rd Respondent, opposes the request by

drawing attention to the previous order dated 25th April

2025.

3. By the said order dated 25th April 2025, the Appellant

was granted, by way of a final opportunity, time to engage an

Advocate. The matter was thereafter listed on 24th June

2025.

4. The matter has not reached since then, though listed on

24th June 2025 and 19th August 2025.

5. The record indicates that no Advocate has entered

Vakalatnama for the Appellant till date, though more than

four months have passed since the last order.

6. In all fairness, the Appellant was asked if he was willing

to compensate the Respondent No. 3 -owner for the delay in

adjudication caused by his failure to engage an Advocate, to

which he subtly declined.

29-ASAO-385-2023.DOC

7. Mr. Kini representing the 3rd Respondent, submits that

the Appellants have been occupying the subject premises for

nearly seven years without paying any compensation to the

owner. They claim tenancy rights on the basis of transfer of

tenancy by the erstwhile tenant in their favour. However, Mr.

Kini submits that such transfer was effected without owner's

consent.

8. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submits

that a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act, 1888, dated 6th December 2017, (at page

14) was issued, followed by a speaking order dated 10th

February 2018. The present Suit challenges the said notice

and the speaking order.

9. The Trial Court, after considering all the contentions

raised, passed an order dated 3rd May 2023 dismissing the

Notice of Motion. The present Appeal impugns that Order.

10. I have heard the Respondents Advocates and examined

the record.

11. It appears that the Appellants claim tenancy on the

basis of an alleged transfer from the erstwhile tenant. The

Respondent No. 3 disputes this on the ground that no such

transfer was with their consent.

29-ASAO-385-2023.DOC

12. The documents relied upon by the Appellant - namely,

electricity and telephone bills, shop and establishment

certificate etc., - in my prima facie view, do not establish

tenancy rights.

13. In any event, that is not an issue before this Court.

Should the Appellants establish their tenancy before a

competent Court, their rights would stand protected in terms

of the judgment of this Court in Anandrao G. Pawar Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others1.

14. I find that the action initiated by Respondent No.1

against the Appellant cannot be faulted. The Trial Court has

correctly recorded the facts, submissions, and findings in the

impugned order. I find no error therein warranting

interference. The Appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly

dismissed.

15. In view of the conduct of the Appellant, following the

principles laid down in Dynadeo Sabaji Naik and AnotherVs.

Pradnya Prakas Khadekar and Others2 exemplary costs of

Rs. 1 lakh are imposed on the Appellant, payable to

Respondent No.3 within a period of 15 days from the date of

uploading of this order on the website of Bombay High Court.

2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534.