JUDGMENT - DIXIT, J. :

These two appeals arise from decrees passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, dismissing the ap­pellants suits. Although these appeals which have been fully and ably argued on both sides are heard together, they will have to be dealt with separately. The principal argument was addressed in First Appeal No. 224 of 1957 and for the sake of convenience, I will deal with that appeal first.

(2) The facts giving rise to suit No. 2011 of 1956, from which appeal No. 224 of 1957 arises, are shortly these. The plaintiffs ore tenants of a building known as Mor Bungalow", situate at Tejpal Road, Vile Parle. It appears that the house was constructed in or about the year 1910. On 28-12-,1954 a notice under S. 354 of the Bombay Munici­pal Corporation Act was served upon defendant No 1, which is a limited company and the owner of the property, requiring the first defendant to do certain repairs. On 14-2-1956 a second notice under S. 354 was served upon defendant No. 1 ask­ing the first defendant to pull down the building as stated in the notice within a specified period of sixty days. Defendant No. 1 then wrote to the plaintiffs on 9-3-1956 intimating to them about the notice s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document