IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Fort point Automotive Private Limited - Petitioners
Versus
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Mahapalika Bhavan & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.145 of 2018
Decided On : 19-09-2018
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888bb - section 351, 105B, and 2(N) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Prospective lessees - Issued an advertisement - lease deed - Petitioner responded to said advertisement vide letter and expressed its interest to take said land on lease - Bid of petitioner was accepted by respondent no-3 - Said portion of land was allotted to petitioner on terms and conditions mentioned in said letter of allotment - Petitioner paid sum of - Towards security deposit - Respondent no-3 agreed to request of petitioner and lease out unused open land admeasuring about on rare side of said premises given on lease - petitioner and respondent no-3 executed a Deed of Lease effecting from for a period of five years or till period demise premises were required for any public purposes by respondent no-3 or respondent no-1 whichever was earlier - Said lease deed was renewed from time to time along with increase in security deposit and monthly lease rentals - It is case of petitioner that before expiry of renewed lease for petitioner vide its requested respondent no-3 to renew said lease for a period of years at a time - responded no-3 proposed to redevelop said Bus Depot – Held, learned counsel for petitioner that witness examined by respondent no-3 having admitted in cross examination that commercial premises allotted to petitioner was not in set-back area is concerned in my view if said deposition in cross examination is contrary to documentary evidence placed on record before respondent no-4 Court has to consider entire evidence in and not an answer to a single question asked to witness for purpose of rendering a conclusion while passing an order - Onus was on petitioner to prove that land of petitioner did not fall in set-back area at least in rebuttal - Respondent no-3 had already led evidence on this issue and had produced undisputed documents on record - Petitioner admittedly did not enter witness box - Learned Estate Manager as well as City Civil Court Bombay were thus justified in passing an order of eviction against petitioner - Writ Petition dismissed
1. By consent of the respondent nos.1 and 2, the order dated 20th July, 2017 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial-I) dismissing the writ petition against the respondent nos.1 and 2 is set aside. The writ petition against the respondent nos.1 and 2 is restored to file.
2. Rule. Ms.Dhond, learned counsel waives service for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Naphade, learned counsel waives service for the respondent nos.3 and 4. By consent of parties, this petition is heard finally. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under :
3. On 22nd September, 1992, the respondent no.3 i.e. The Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) issued an advertisement inviting the bids from the prospective lessees for lease out an additional available area at Mahim Bus Depot at Mahim admeasuring about 622 sq. ft. abutting the main Mahim Bus Depot. The petitioner responded to the said advertisement vide letter dated 30th September, 1992 and expressed its interest to take the said land on lease. On 30th October, 1992, the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent no.3. The said portion of the land was allotted to the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter of allotment. The petitioner paid the sum of Rs.12,75,000/- towards the security deposit. The respondent no.3 agreed to the request of the petitioner and lease out the unused open land admeasuring about 483 sq. ft. on the rare side of the said premises given on lease. On 12th November, 1995, the petitioner and the respondent no.3 executed a Deed of Lease effecting from 16th January, 1993 for a period of five years i.e. from 15th January, 1998 or till the period the demise premises were required for any public purposes by the respondent no.3 or the respondent no.1 whichever was earlier. The said lease deed was renewed from time to time along with increase in the security deposit and monthly lease rentals.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that before expiry of the renewed lease for the period 2003-2008, the petitioner vide its letter dated 17th August, 2007 requested the respondent no.3 to renew the said lease for a period of 15 years at a time. The responded no.3 proposed to redevelop the said Mahim Bus Depot. The Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated 27th July, 2006 granted an approval to develop the entire land reserved for BEST Bus Depot on commercial basis subject to the maximum limit of 30% built-up area of the total permissible floor area of the plot. The responded no.3 accordingly invited bids from the developers for development of the said plot at Mahim Bus Depot. The respondent no.3 had also lease out a portion of the said Mahim Bus Depot to “M/s. New Aaram Restaurant”.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that upon receipt of the bids on 21st June, 2007, the respondent no.3 placed the matter before a Committee to consider the bids received by it. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meeting held in the month of June, 2007, the said Committee noted that out of total plot of 6304 sq. mtrs., a portion of the land admeasuring 427 sq. mtrs. was handed over to the respondent no.1 i.e. Mumbai Municipal Corporation as set-back area on 24th July, 1976 and balance area that was available for redevelopment was 5877 sq. mtrs. It was stated in the said minutes of the meeting that the existing commercial premises of the petitioner and the staff quarters had been retained as it was in the proposed lay out and separate structure would be constructed for the Bus Depot and the office of the Electric Supply Department on North-East side of the plot. In the tender condition, it was provided that part portion of the ground floor admeasuring 118 sq. mtrs. of the existing Bus Depot building had been allotted M/s. New Aaram Restaurant by the BEST Undertaking. The developer was required to accommodate the said M/s. New Aaram Restaurant at his costs by allotti
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.