JUDGMENT

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.187/2011 whereby the appellant’s prayer for issue of a mandamus to the Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2) to get the damaged portion of his flat repaired was rejected but he was given liberty to secure execution of the order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Cooperative Appellate Court’).

3. The appellant is a member of respondent No.3-Shree Sainiketan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. He was allotted Flat No.001 in the building constructed by respondent No.3 at Borivali (West), Mumbai. Respondent No.3 claims to have carried out major repairs in 2005-06 and all its members except the appellant contributed towards the expenses. The appellant disputed his liability to pay the expenses incurred by respondent No.3 and raised a dispute under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is not clear from the record as to what was the fate of the original dispute filed by the appellant before the Cooperative Court IV, Mumbai, but this much is evident that the matter was carried to the Cooperative Appellate Court in Revision Application No.73/2007.

4. On 9.12.2007, a portion of the roof of the flat allotted to the appellant collapsed and his mother is said to have suffered injuries. The appellant’s brother, who is an Advocate, made a complaint to the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the Corporation’). Thereupon, Assistant Engineer (Buildings and Factories), North Ward directed the concerned Junior Engineer to inspect the flat. The latter inspected the premises on 10.12.2007 and reported that a portion of the roof had collapsed. Thereafter, notice dated 12.12.2007 was issued to the Chairman/Secretary of respondent No.3 under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, ‘the 1888 Act’) and they were directed to carry out repairs in the flat within a period of two months. It was also mentioned in the notice that if the needful is not done then prosecution may be launched under Section 475-A and repairs may be carried out under Section 489 and the cost recovered in accordance with Section 491.

5. In the meanwhile, M/s. Parlekar and Dallas, Architects were directed by the Court to visit the flat and submit a report about its status as also the estimate of cost/expenses of repair works required to be carried out. The Architects inspected the flat and submitted report showing the damage to the flat but did not give an estimate of the cost of repairs.

6. After submission of the report by the Architects, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No.1/2008 and made the following prayers:

“1. Respondent society be directed to pay fees of the Architect and other relevant incidental fees/ expenses.

2. To bear the cost of the leave and license compensation for such period starting from the date of start of leave and license agreement by applicant till the date of suit flat declared safe for resuming residing in it, by the expert structural engineers and or architects and all other necessary incidental expenses of leave and license agreement and its registration and others. The above expenses should include such expenses that may be required to be incurred on change and /or extension of leave and license agreements.”

7. The Cooperative Appellate Court took cognizance of the correspondence between the appellant and the officers of the Corporation on the one hand and the officers of the Corporation and respondent No.3 on the other and the notices issued by the Competent Authority under Section 354 of the 1888 Act and observed:

“As far as the first part is concerned, to pay the fees of the architect, it is to be noted that it was the applicant who had applied for appointment of an architect and at his instance M/s. Parelkar