2019 Supreme(Bom) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Renuka Dhanrajgir Batlivala - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1092, 1093 of 2019
Decided On : 26-04-2019

Headnote:

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act – Section 105B – Lease Agreements – Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai both under which the petitioners were inter alia directed to vacate the premises that form the subject-matter of the said order, before 14th February, 2019, failing which necessary action would be taken – As far as W.P.(Lodging) is concerned, the property is Plot "A3" and "A4" i.e. land bearing CTS 96 (Pt) of village Paspoli, Powai, admeasuring 1682 square meters abutting the Powai Lake – As far as W.P.(Lodging) is concerned, the same is with respect to Plot "Q" i.e. land bearing CTS No. 96 of village Paspoli, admeasuring 565.00 square meters abutting the Powai Lake. Since the petitioners as well as the respondents in both the petitions are the same and the issues raised in both the petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment. According to the petitioners, they are the heirs and legal representatives of the late Mrs. Homai A. Peerbhoy (alias Mrs. Homai H. Batlivala) and Mr. Rutton H. Batlivala. Respondent No.1 is the MCGM and respondent No.2 is the office of the Hydraulic Engineer of respondent No.1. – According to the petitioners, the aforementioned plots, namely, Plots "A3", "A4" and "Q" were given on lease to the petitioners. – Lease agreements were sanctioned by the Improvements Committee of respondent No.1 under its Resolution No. 158 and Resolution No. 392 respectively. – According to the petitioners, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, the Improvements Committee and Mr. Akbar A. Peerbhoy entered into Articles of Agreement with respect to Plots "A3" and "A4". – Even though the Articles of Agreement was styled as a Leave and Licence Agreement, it is the contention of the petitioners that the same was treated as a lease. As far as Plot "Q" is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1, the Municipal Commissioner and Mrs. Homai H. Batlivala and Mr. Rutton H. Batlivala executed an indenture of lease – Held, In such circumstances, this alternate argument fails to impress court. – It would be a mockery of the rule of law if a person coming to Court and placed like the Petitioners before us, admittedly found to be in possession of public property without the authority of law, can still request the Court that the real owner (namely the MCGM), now has to evict the petitioners by following the provisions of Chapter V-A. – If court were to order such a course being adopted in our writ jurisdiction, it will be perpetuating a wrong. – A wrong doer can never take advantage of his own wrong and continue perpetuating the wrong with the assistance of Municipal Officials. – Here, the Municipal Corporation has already informed the Petitioners that their leases have come to end by the efflux of time and they must vacate the premises. – Once court have upheld the contention of the MCGM that the leases have come to an end by the efflux of time and there is no renewal or a fresh lease, then, court do not see how the alternate argument can be accepted. – It is therefore rejected. – Court may also mention that in both the impugned orders passed by the Hydraulic Engineer, it has been specifically recorded that the petitioners were asked to see the said Hydraulic Engineer on 10th November, 2017 for a personal hearing. – This was communicated by a letter – Despite this, the petitioners did not appear nor submitted their say and it is in these circumstances that the impugned orders came to be passed. – Apart from a bald assertion that the show cause notices were not received, there is nothing else on record to substantiate the aforesaid allegations. In these peculiar circumstances and looking to the totality of the facts of the case, court do not think that the alternate argument would in any way vitiate the well reasoned orders passed by the Municipal Authorities. – Court find that these petitions are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. – Court have come to this conclusion because even on the documents as annexed to the petition, it is clear that the lease with reference to the aforesaid plots was never renewed by the MCGM. Despite this, the petitioners have been occupying the said plots along with the structures thereon for a period of more than 18 years and thereafter have approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction. – Court is increasingly finding that such litigations are filed in this Court and which we would not hesitate to term as "chance litigations". – This practice has to be nipped in the bud and litigants who engage in this kind of litigation and waste precious judicial time, should be saddled with heavy costs so that it would dissuade other parties (like the petitioners in this case) from filing such frivolous petitions. – Petition Dismissed