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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document