IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.K. Desai and G.N.Vaidya, JJ.
Appellants: Diwanchand Gupta
Vs.
Respondent: N.M. Shah and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. No. 259 of 1970 and Spl. C. As. Nos. 744, 745 and 750 of 1970 Decided On: 01.07.1971
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTION 354, 507 - NOTICE TO PULL DOWN BUILDING - APPLICATION TO VACATE PREMISES - JURISDICTION OF CHIEF JUDGE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DELEGATION OF POWERS - DISCRIMINATION - BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 13 (1) (HHH), 28 - SCOPE AND EFFECT - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PETITIONS WITH COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Owners of a building in a ruinous condition received a notice under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to pull down the building. The owners filed applications under Section 507 of the Act seeking an order directing the occupants to vacate the premises to enable them to comply with the notice. The occupants resisted the applications, contending that the notice was invalid, the applications were not maintainable, and the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notice issued under Section 354 was valid and the applications under Section 507 were maintainable. It rejected the contention that the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications, holding that Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and Section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act could co-exist and that the applications under Section 507 were not barred by Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was valid? 2. Whether the applications under Section 507 of the Act were maintainable? 3. Whether the Chief Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the applications?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notice issued under Section 354 was valid as it was issued by an authorized officer who had objectively considered the facts and was satisfied that the building was in a ruinous condition and dangerous to the public. The Court further held that the satisfaction of the authorized officer was subjective and not open to challenge by the Court. 2. The Court held that the applications under Section 507 were maintainable as they were not barred by Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The Court held that Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and Section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act could co-exist and that the applications under Section 507 were not claims or questions arising out of the Bombay Rent Act. 3. The Court held that the Chief Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the applications as Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act empowered him to make an order requiring the occupants to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner for complying with the notice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the petitions with costs, holding that the notice issued under Section 354 was valid, the applications under Section 507 were maintainable, and the Chief Judge had jurisdiction to entertain them.
1. The above four petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order dated November 28, 1969 passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in two applications filed under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The said two applications were filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in special civil application No. 259 of 1970, who own the premises bearing No. 61. Clive Road, Danabunder Bombay No. 9 consisting of a ground floor and two upper floors. Municipal Application No. 174/M of 1966 was filed against 17 tenants, one of whom is the petitioner in special civil application No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No 15 in the application. Municipal application No. 175/M of 1966 was filed against 16 respondents mentioned therein, of whom the petitioners in special civil application Nos. 744, 745 and 750 were some of the respondents. They were described as occupants, who were not the tenants of the owners.
2. In both the applications respondents Nos. 2 to 8 in special civil application No. 259 of 1970 (who will be hereinafter described as "the owners") stated that they were served with a notice bearing No. 18 dated June 11, 1965 from the Assistant Engineer, Division B, Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is as follows :-
"BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Notice under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, No. BN/18 of 1965 - 1966
Bombay,
Dt. 11-6-1965.
To
Shri Parasram Dhanpat,
The Owner of the Building
Whereas it appears to me that the certain structure, to wit, a portion of the building on premises No. 61 situate at Clive Road, of which you are the owner is in a ruinous condition, likely to fall and dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to, or passing - by the same. I hereby require you, under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to
To pull down the whole building upto ground level.
Time limit 30 days.
Note : The building is presumed to face Clive Road, on east and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom, I further hereby require you, under the aforesaid section of the Municipal Corporation Act, forthwith before proceeding to pull down, and secure the said structure to set up a proper and sufficient board or fence for the protection of passers - by and other persons. I give you notice that, if within 30 days from the service or receipt hereof this requisition be not complied with you render yourself liable to prosecution under Section 471 of the said Act and I may thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of Section 489 of the said Act take such measures or cause such work to be executed or such thing to be done as shall in my opinion be necessary for giving due effect to this requisition and you will be liable for the expenses thereof which will be recovered from you in the manner provided by Section 491 of the said Act. No portion of the structure within the regular line of the street may be reconstructed nor may anything within the scope of Section 342 of the said Municipal Corporation Act, other than the work which you are expressly required by this notice to do, be made or done without previously giving notice thereof as required by Section 342 aforesaid.
Sd/- (Illegible) Sd/ Coutinho
S. E. B. South Assistant Engineer
Division B
Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Note : Under S. 68 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay has empowered the Asstt. Engineer Division B to exercise perform and discharge all the powers duties and functions conferred and imposed upon and vested in the Commissioner by Sections 354 and 489 of the said Act".
It was alleged by the owners that although the owners were called upon by the said notice to pull down the said building upto the ground level as the building stood in a ruinous condition, the petitioners in these special civil applications and the other tenants and occupants (who will all be he
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.