Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Petitioner
Versus
Suhas Shridhar Rane & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4905 of 2009
Decided On : 27-04-2018
For the Petitioner:A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel, a/w. Joel Carlos, Oorja Dhond, i/by V.K. Khatu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ashok Shinde, Rent Supervisor, “F/South Ward”, R.V. Govilkar, a/w. Shaba N. Khan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Enquiry - Quash - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had constructed Tenements Mumbai- It was consisting Ground Floor Structures including tenements each for residential purpose and one structure with tenements for commercial purpose residential premises were given on lease Municipal employees- In MCGM demolished tenements out of Residential Block and Commercial Block and constructed a multi-storied building thereon comprising of Ground Floor and Upper Floors totally consisting of residential tenements- In all tenants from Block tenants from demolished tenements from Block were shifted newly constructed multi-storied building- Remaining constructed Blocks were allotted other Municipal employees on leave and license basis- Due to shifting from Block tenements fell vacant in those Blocks- Those tenements were then allotted to other Municipal employees including present Respondents –Held, Petition has already been decided by this Court holding that Respondents cannot be deprived of membership of Co-operative Housing Society” however further making it clear that mere grant of membership of said Society would not be construed to mean that Respondents would automatically be entitled to benefit of allotment of premises in new building proposed to be constructed and such entitlement if any would have to be decided independently after considering all factors of case- Therefore this matter being already been decided by this Court remedy which was available to Respondents against alleged discrimination is already availed- Hence no more grievance can be entertained on that count Cooperative Housing Society” which Developer has agreed to accommodate in Redevelopment Scheme Development Control Regulation to be accommodated in sale component in proposed construction- As observed by Appellate Court Developer has done so out of his own volition- If according to Respondents was at instance of MCGM then that score also Respondents had remedy which they have availed and can still avail independently- Against order of this Court also in Writ Petition they can approach Apex Court- However fact remains that scope of these proceedings is very limited just to ascertain whether license of Respondents is terminated properly by valid notice as termination of their license their occupation has become unauthorized which is properly proved in this case- It also worth to note that Respondents were also allotted alternate staff quarters at Park Site - So it cannot said that action of termination of license is unreasonable or not fair attempt is also made to contend that as per Section was required to frame Rules regulating procedure to be adopted and followed in holding inquiries however no such regulations have been framed by Corporation- In my considered opinion this contention also cannot be accepted as Enquiry Officer has given proper opportunity of hearing to both parties- There is no grievance raised that principles of natural justice are not followed- In view thereof Court do not find any reason to interfere in said order on this score also - Petition allowed
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner-Municipal Corporation, and Mr. Govilkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
2. This Writ Petition is directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 31st December 2008, passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.204 of 2007, 205 of 2007 and 206 of 2007. These three Miscellaneous Appeals were preferred by the Respondents herein against the common order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, under Section 105-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, in three separate Inquiry Nos.FS/1 of 2007, FS/2 of 2007 and FS/3 of 2007 dated 5th November 2007.
3. The facts, which strictly speaking, may not be germane for deciding these Writ Petitions, but which are advanced by learned counsel for the parties and discussed at length in the order of the Enquiry Officer and in its Judgment by the Appellate Court, can be stated as follows:-
4. In the year 1950, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (for short, “MCGM”), had constructed “110 Tenements” at D.G. Mahajani Path, Sewree, Mumbai. It was consisting of 11 Ground Floor Structures, including 10 tenements each, for residential purpose and one structure with 10 tenements for commercial purpose. The residential premises were given on lease to the Municipal employees. In 1975, the MCGM demolished 7 tenements out of Residential Block No.11 and the Commercial Block No.10 and constructed a multi-storied building thereon comprising of a Ground Floor and 4 Upper Floors, totally consisting of 40 residential tenements. In all, 27 tenants from Block Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9; and 7 tenants from demolished tenements from Block No.11 were shifted to the newly constructed multi-storied building. Remaining 6 newly constructed Blocks were allotted to other Municipal employees on leave and license basis. Due to shifting of 27 allottees from Block Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9; 27 tenements fell vacant in those Blocks. Those 27 tenements were then allotted to other 27 Municipal employees, including the present Respondents.
5. Respondent No.1 was allotted Room No.9 in Block No.8; Respondent No.2 was allotted Room No.2 in Block No.7; whereas, Respondent No.3 was allotted Room No.6 in Block No.8 on leave and license basis. Out of these 27 new occupants, 11 allottees had vacated the premises and remaining 16 employees, including the present Respondents, at the time of initiating inquiry under Section 105-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, (for short, “the MMC Act”), were in occupation of those rooms. Out of these 16 occupants, 13 occupants, excluding the present Respondents, formed a Co-operative Housing Society named as “Yuvak Co-operative Housing Society”. The said Society submitted an application dated 5th June 1985 to the Petitioner-MCGM for permitting it to redevelop the land under Block Nos.6, 7 and 8. Initially, the said request was accepted by the MCGM vide its letter dated 5th July 1985. However, later on, the MCGM withdrew the said permission by it's letter dated 3rd March 1992. The said withdrawal of permission is challenged by the “Yuvak Co-operative Housing Society” in Writ Petition No.265 of 2000 filed in this Court.
6. Respondents herein also tried to become the members of the “Yuvak Co-operative Housing Society”. However, they were not allowed on the ground that, the MCGM has prohibited the said Society to admit any new members, other than the original 13 members of the Society. Respondents had challenged refusal of the “Yuvak Co-operative Housing Society”, to enroll them as members, before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This challenge was allowed by both these Authorities and the Respondents were directed to be enrolled as the members of the “Yuvak Co-operative Housing Society”. However, “Yuvak Co-operative Housing So
