JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard both the learned Counsel.

2. Appeal admitted. Mr. Singhvi for the respondents-Corporation waives service. By consent appeal taken up for hearing forthwith. Heard both sides.

3. This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 29th June 1992 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay by which the prayer for ad-interim relief pending the motion has been rejected. The Counsel for the parties have argued the matter in details raising an important question of law and have invited a decision on it. Since the point arises in several cases, the question of law which has been argued is as to whether the right to have an oral hearing or personal hearing is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. In other words, in the facts of the present case, the precise question of law which arises is whether in the proceedings under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 351 of the B.M.C. Act, 1888 (for short "the Corporation Act"), the Municipal Commissioner or the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is bound to give oral hearing or personal hearing to the affected party. A few facts may be stated as under.

4. The appellant claims to be the owner of a chawl of brick masonry walls and A.C. sheets roof measuring about 104' x 21'/37' consisting of 10 rooms known as "Razak Chawl" situated at land bearing Survey No. 208 (part) CTS 2050 (part) at Kajupada Road, Kaujupada, Borivli (East), Dahisar village, Bombay which is referred to as the "suit premises". The respondent-Corporation issued a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 351 of the Corporation Act on 13th March 1992 pointing out to the appellant that he had erected the suit premises contrary to the provisions of section 347 of the Corporation Act. The appellant was, therefore, required to submit a statement in writing showing sufficient cause why the suit premises should not be pulled down. The notice further stated that if the appellant was in possession of any proof to show that the construction of the suit premises was not unauthorised, he was requested to produce the same. It further informed the appellant that if he failed to show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the suit premises would be removed or pulled down.

5. On 17th March 1992, the appellant submitted his reply and contended that the suit premises were in existence prior to 1960 but since the same were situated in an undeveloped area, they were not assessed and came to be assessed subsequently under Assessment No. R/7060(5F). According to the appellant the suit premises were also censused but since they were situated on a private land, no photo pass or identity card was issued to the appellant. The appellant contended that he had carried out minor repairs in October 1982 and again in December, 1991, including changing of decayed A.C. Sheets over the roof of the suit premises. The appellant did say that he was in possession of several documents in support of his contentions and in the concluding portion of the reply, he prayed for personal hearing being given to him to enable him to produce the original documents for the scrutiny of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.

6. On 28th May 1992, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner passed the order to the effect that he had carefully considered the appellant's reply dated 17th March 1992 and the reply was not satisfactory on account of four grounds which are mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the cyclostyled order. They are as under :

1. That you have failed to produce the assessment bill showing therein the existence of the structure prior to 17-4-1964 and assessment bill produced under No. R-7060(5F) does not pertain to the structure under reference.

2. That you have failed to produce the C.T.S. plan showing therein the existence of the structure prior to 17-4-1964.

3. That you have failed to produce the census certificate showing therein that the structure is censused in the year 1976.

4. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document