Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Jyoti Prakash vs Municipal Corporation Bhopal on 7 May, 2024

                                                            1
                          IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                                 ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 686 of 2013

                         BETWEEN:-
                         DR. JYOTI PRAKASH S/O LATE SHRI NITYA GOPAL
                         TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         PHYSICIAN R/O G-3 SEHGAL TOWER, A/15, HOUSING
                         BOARD COLONY, KOH - E -FIZA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI DEEPAK PANJWANI - ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         MUNICIPAL   CORPORATION     BHOPAL   THR.
                         COMMISSIONER SADAR MANZIL, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

                               This appeal coming on for Admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard on admission.

The question raised before the trial court was that the respondent - Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has issued Notice of Demolition of the house and after trial, the trial court has partly granted the relief to the appellant by issuing direction that the respondent/Municipal Corporation shall not demolish the house of the plaintiff without following due process of law and give an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and shall not demolish the Gallery and Stairs of the disputed premises of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with that, the

appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court. Hence, this Appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the notices have been issued on the basis that the plaintiff is using the disputed premises for commercial purposes and he has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra M. Surti Vs. State of Gujarat 1969 AIR (SC) 63, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Doctor, who is practicing without the employees and without much infrastructure, then his practicing as a Doctor does not come in the purview in the commercial activities and the place cannot

be said to be commercial establishment.

But in the plaint, the plaintiff has simply challenged the notice, and the suit was not based on the ground that the notices have been issued on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant is using the accommodation for the commercial activities, and only that ground has been argued before me. Hence, the appeal is devoid of the merit, and the same stands dismissed.

With the copy of the aforesaid order, the record the trial court and First Appellant Court be returned back.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE nd