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 served upon it, dated 14-2-1956, and by the letter it asked the plaintiffs to vacate within fifteen days. The plaintiffs wrote a letter to the first de­fendant, telling it that steps were being taken by which they would endeavour for the withdrawal of the notice. On 22-3-1956 the plaintiffs, by their letter to the City Engineer, asked him to withdraw the notice and also asked for an interview in the company of their architects. On 26-4-1956 the City Engineer gave a reply to the plaintiffs refusing to withdraw the notice served on defendant No. 1. On 13-7-1956 the plaintiffs gave notice of suit as required by S. 527 of the Act and on 31-8-1956 the present-suit was filed.

(3) In the suit the plaintiffs alleged that the notice issued to the first defendant under S. 354 was mala fide issued by the City Engineer in collusion with the first defendant. They also alleged that S. 354 was ultra vires and invalid as it conferred on the Municipal Commissioner an arbitrary, un-restricted and unfettered discretion to order the pulling down of any structure and also because the section did not provide for the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The plaintiffs further contended that S. 354 was void as it affected the plaintiffs fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution.

(4) The first defendant, which is a private limited company, filed a written statement and disputed the averments made by the plaintiffs. In the suit, apart from the first defendant, the owner, the plaintiffs made the Bombay Municipal Corporation as the second defendant in the suit, and by a written statement filed by the Corporation, it was content ded that the notice issued under S. 354 was not mala fide, that the Court could not interfere with the executive authority conferred by S. 354 and that it denied the allegation made against it of collusion. Further, it was contended that S. 354 was not void and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them.

(5) Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mr. M. G. Chitale, framed several issues, and in the end, he dismissed the plaintiffs suit, holding, inter alia, that the allegation of mala fides was not made out, that the Court could not interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority under S. 354 and that the section was not void, notwithstanding Article 19 of the Constitution, as contended. Feeling aggrieved by the decree, the plaintiffs have come up upon this appeal.

(6) Upon this appeal, Mr. Phadke appearing for the plaintiffs has taken up three points. It has been urged, firstly, that the notice issued to the first defendant under S. 354 is mala fide both in fact and in law. It is then urged that the authority acting under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document