JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Both aforesaid appeals arise out of the common order dt. 28-2-92 passed by Bombay City Civil Court of Notice of Motion No. 6544 of 1991 in L.C. Suit No. 7977 of 1991, and, hence have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgement.

2. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 in the Appeal No. 312/92, and, Appellants in Appeal No. 313/92 are owners of the property known as 'Khandelwal Estate, Opp. L and T Welfare Centre, Saki-Vihar Road. The Respondent No. 1 in both the appeals viz. Shri. Bishandas Motilal Sharma claims himself to be tenant of the structure admeasuring 22' x 15" in the said Khandelwal Estate since 21-3-86. The tenant B. M. Sharma was carrying business in the said structure in the name and style of 'Asian Tyres and Battery' as a sole proprietor. It appears that some dispute arose between the owners and the tenant on the question of electric meter and according to tenant, the owners threatened him that he would be dispossesed. According to the tenant, he filed the suit against the owners on 11-2-88 and had obtained an injunction. On 30-8-91, a notice purporting to be under sec. 351, of the B. M. C. Act, 1888 (for short B. M. C. Act) was issued to tenant Shri. B. M. Sharma and in the said notice, it was alleged that he has erected/commenced to execute the work viz. a structure having size of 30' x 20", with the height of 8' x 10' having 9 inch thick brick for commercial purpose without authority and without obtaining the permission from Municipal Corporation. The tenant Shri. B.M. Sharma replied the said notice dt. 30.8.88 on 3.9.91 denying the allegations made in the notice about any unauthorised construction raised by him, and, it was stated by him that he was occupying the premises since 1988 and he wanted to carry-out some repairs to which his landlord objected and hence at his behest this notice has been given. The Dy. Municipal Commissioner, Gr. Bombay considered the reply submitted by the tenant B.M. Sharma and the documents submitted by him and held that the reply was without any substance and that the construction carried-out by him was unauthorised and did not show that the structure was in existence prior to 1-4-62. Accordingly the Dy. Municipal Commissioner by the order dt. 1-10-91 ordered demolition of the disputed structure. The tenant then filed the suit in the court of Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay against his landlord owners who are Respondents No. 2 and 3 in Appeal No. 312/92 and Appellants in Appeal No. 313/92 and the Municipal Commissioner, Gr. Bombay (hereinafter referred to as Defendant No.1). In the said suit, the tenant Plaintiff prayed that the notice dt. 30.8.91, and, the order of Dy. Municipal Commissioner dt. 1-10-91 be declared bad, illegal, in breach of natural justice and not binding on the Plaintiff. The tenant Plaintiff also prayed that the Defendants be ordered and directed by mandatory order an injunction to reconstruct his structure i.e. the shop admeasuring 22' x 15' consisting of roof of cement sheet and brick walls on the four side and shutter on the front side at the road cross or in the alternative the Plaintiff be permitted to reconstruct the structure at the cost of the Defendant. According to tenant Plaintiff after the aforesaid suit was filed on 16.10.91. Defendants were intimated that he would take out notice of motion for the grant of temporary injunction in his favour and against the Defendants on 22-10-91. It is further case of the tenant Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1 was served with the aforesaid intimation on 19-10-91 while Defendants No. 2 and 3 were served with intimation on 21-10-91. The allegation of the Plaintiff is that to frustrate and defeat the notice of motion which the Plaintiff was to take out on 22-10-91 before the trial court in the suit filed by him, the Defendant No.1 demolished the disputed structure on 22-10-91. In view of this unauthorised demolition of the disputed structure by Defendant No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document