[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramesh Jinabhai Waghela vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:6702
7.AO.674.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 674 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 38391 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 674 OF 2025
Ramesh Jinabhai Waghela Appellant (Orig.
.. Plaintiff No.3)
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. A.S. Rao a/w. Mr. Ameya Khot, Advocates for Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate for BMC.
Ms. Anjali Helekar a/w. S.A. Abhyankar, Advocates for Respondent
No.3.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 09, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Vajale,
learned Advocate for BMC and Ms. Helekar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.3.
2. This is a case where the Appellant / Plaintiff No.3 is arguing
issues with which he has absolutely no locus whatsoever. A long rope
is given to Appellant / Plaintiff No.3 to argue the present Appeal From
Order after which the present order is passed. There are 19 Plaintiffs
before Trial Court. Only one of them i.e. Plaintiff No.3 has challenged
1 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
rejection of Exhibit "5" Order.
3. Mr. Rao appears for the Appellant. Appellant / Plaintiff No.3
is amongst 36 tenants in the property comprising of a ground + one
storey building situated on Final Plot No.664, TPS-III, R M. Bhattad
Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai known as 'Vishnu Niwas'. Admittedly
building is constructed prior to 1961 by the landlord. Defendant No.3
in the Suit proceedings is the owner and landlord duly represented by
Mr. Abhayankar along with Mrs. Helekar. The building is 62 years old
and having seen and weathered several monsoons was categorized in
C2-A category requiring major repairs with evacuation pursuant to
notice issued by the Corporation under Section 353(B) of Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short 'MMC Act') on 15.09.2021.
Series of incidents have happened thereafter.
4. Defendant No.3 owner / landlord carried out Structural
Audit which prima facie was deemed to be incomplete and lacked
Proforma-B prompting a second follow-up notice from the Corporation.
Second structural Audit Report dated 17.08.2022 was filed by owner
with the Corporation, inter alia, reaffirming the status of the building
as 'C2-A' classification requiring major repairs with evacuation. 36
tenants were housed in the building. Meeting of the tenants with the
Corporation fructified delay in repairs and evacuation of the property
when some of the tenants consented to contribute Rs.1 lakh each and
2 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
called for a detailed repair plan. The Structural Auditor who had given
the plan initially called out each of the tenants to deposit of Rs.5 lakhs
with the landlord of the building which was not agreed upon. After
two years thereafter, the Plaintiffs rather some of the tenants
commissioned an independent Structural Audit which once again re-
affirmed C2-A classification status. Nothing fructified thereafter save
and except making an Application to the Corporation and Corporation
granting permission for repairs on 26.08.2022 under Section 499 of
the MMC Act.
5. Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Appellant / Plaintiff No.3
would submit that this Court needs to take into account the fact that
repairs commenced with the monies that was collected and contributed
by some of the tenants, but nothing fructified thereafter. Corporation
had to issue stop work notice and follow-up notice leading to several
disputes resulting in intervention of the local MP who at the behest of
the tenants convened and appointed another Structural Auditor to
prepare SAR who prepared Report dated 05.11.2024. In this Report, it
was opined that the tenants had completed the repairs. Since there
was a clear dichotomy, the said SAR was referred to the TAC
Committee which conducted a thorough an independent Structural
Audit through experts and submitted its report classifying the building
in C-1 category.
3 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
6. The Suit was filed when Plaintiffs received notice under
Section 527 of the MMC Act in September 2023 to challenge the
further notice issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act. According to
Corporation, Structural Audit Report submitted by Plaintiffs had a
validity of four months and if structural repairs were not commenced
within the said period, the said Report would stand invalidated and
invalid leading to further inspection in accordance with law.
7. The TAC Committee Report incidentally classifies the
building as 'C1' category requiring immediate evacuation and
demolition due to significant loss of structural integrity and strength of
the building between 2021 and 2025. In response to the TAC Report,
no response was received and some of the tenants namely 19 of them
filed the present Suit proceedings together.
8. Interim relief has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by
a reasoned speaking order appended at page No.126 of the Appeal
From Order.
9. Mr. Rao on behalf of one of the Plaintiff has persuaded me to
consider the incidents and events which transpired before passing of
the impugned order before the Trial Court during which representation
on behalf of Plaintiffs was made.
10. I have persuaded Mr. Rao to argue the issue with respect to
the impugned order which has been passed which prima facie
4 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
juxtaposes the three SAR Reports and TAC Committee Report to arrive
at a conclusion.
11. Learned Trial Court has considered the first SAR Report filed
by Nilesh Pandit structural consultant of M/s. Space Design and
Development which is a detailed Report alongwith the Report
prepared by Mr. Pragnesh Oza dated 26.07.2023. It is prima facie
seen that the TAC Committee Report which is the third Report accepts
both the aforesaid Report before carrying out the Structural Audit in
respect of the subject building and qualifies that the said building
requires immediate evacuation in view of major leakages and
dampness in all walls exposed to weather, significant deflection in
ceiling slabs which has been prima facie observed, absence of plinth
protection, cracked flooring, and sagging of roof rafters on the first
floor. It is prima facie seen from the TAC Report that plumbing pipes
are misaligned and broken in several places, external plaster exhibited
cracks and signs of leakages and most importantly the common
passage on the first floor is severely sagged.
12. When the matter was first mentioned before me in
December 2025, grievance of Plaintiff No.3 as Appellant before me was
that he was not given a copy of TAC Report. By an order of this Court
copy of the said Report was directed to be given to Plaintiff to take
appropriate steps.
5 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
13. The findings returned in paragraph Nos.9 to 11 are prima
facie based upon the Reports which are placed before the Court and
which are analyzed by this Court and also the subsequent events. It is
seen that Plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 4 to 15 and 17 to 19 have already settled
their disputes with the Defendant No.3 landlord by filing Consent
Terms and vacated the Suit premises i.e. their respective rooms before
any untoward incident can happen which is recorded by the learned
Trial Court. It is recorded that Plaintiff No.16 could not be present to
execute Consent Terms due to his illness. The only person which I may
not called minuscule minority either is Plaintiff No.3 before me. He is
the only dissenting member. For the last two months adequate
opportunity is given to Plaintiff No.3 to challenge the TAC Report but
Plaintiff No.3 has not done so. He chooses to argue the matter. Prima
facie he has not shown any perversity in the TAC Report to me.
14. Today, when the matter is called out, arguments are
advanced across the bar on the basis of ad-interim orders passed by the
Trial Court without even arguing the merits of the impugned order
before the Court. Another submission which is completely irrelevant is
made by Plaintiff No.3 is with respect to the status of the land where
the building is situated. Mr. Rao has placed before me an order dated
04.02.2026 passed in RTS proceedings by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
inter alia, with respect to Mutation Entries in respect of the subject
land wherein it is stated that the subject land is tribal land and the
6 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
original owner not being a tribal would not be entitled to the land as
also the building standing thereon and then in the event if said
building is demolished, the original owner will not be in a position to
reconstruct the same. This submission of Mr. Rao cannot be
countenanced for more than one reason. Appellant / Plaintiff No.3 has
no locus whatsoever to make the aforesaid submission. That apart, the
reasons which are given by the learned Trial Court prima facie go to
the root of the matter. Because of the aforesaid submission, the said
subject suit building which is in a dilapidated state cannot be allowed
to be occupied. It is a matter of life and death. The minuscule minority
of the dissenting member cannot withhold development especially
when Defendant No.3 has taken steps as also to ensure that all tenants
will be treated at par.
15. Mr. Rao would submit that Plaintiffs are entitled to alternate
accommodation in lieu of their existing premises if they are vacate and
they not so offered the alternate accommodation. That right cannot be
available to the Plaintiff as a matter of right and all tenants will be
treated at par by the landowner / Developer when redevelopment
happens.
16. Ms. Helekar, learned Advocate alongwith Ms. Abhyankar
appears on behalf of Respondent No.3 - owner informs the Court that
as on today the immediate need of the hour is to vacate and evacuate
7 of 8
7.AO.674.2025.doc
the building before any untoward incident happens. Despite giving
adequate opportunity to Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has not been able to
challenge the TAC Committee Report.
17. The owner through his Advocate makes a statement that all
tenants will be treated at par in accordance with law in so far as any
entitlement in redevelopment on the said land is concerned and no
discrimination whatsoever will be made against any of the 36 tenants.
18. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the
submissions made by Mr. Rao and interfere with the reasoned speaking
order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. The said
order is upheld.
19. Needless to state that all contentions of Plaintiffs are
otherwise expressly kept open before the learned Trial Court in the
pending suit.
20. Appeal From Order is dismissed.
21. Interim Application is accordingly dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally
signed by AJAY
TRAMBAK
AJAY UGALMUGALE
TRAMBAK
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.02.09
20:27:10
+0530
8 of 8
