Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Samantawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 851 of 2023 With Interim Application No. 16281 of 2023 With Appeal From Order No. 852 of 2023 With Interim Application No. 16283 of 2023
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Revocation Letters - Municipal Corporation's Decision to Revoke Permission for Use of Gymnasium Centres - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 105B - The Appellants, caretakers of the gymnasium centres, sought temporary injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation from implementing revocation letters. The court found that the Appellants did not have any enforceable rights to continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of their caretaker agreements. The court also held that the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke permission and take back possession of the premises was justified. The appeals were dismissed, and the Appellants were given 8 weeks to vacate the premises.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) constructed two gymnasium centres and allotted them to the Appellants on a caretaker basis. After the expiration of the caretaker agreements, the Municipal Corporation decided not to renew the agreements and issued revocation letters to take back possession of the premises. The Appellants sought temporary injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation from implementing the revocation letters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellants did not have any enforceable rights to continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of their caretaker agreements. The court also held that the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke permission and take back possession of the premises was justified. The appeals were dismissed, and the Appellants were given 8 weeks to vacate the premises.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Appellants had any enforceable rights to continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of their caretaker agreements and whether the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke permission and take back possession of the premises was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellants did not have any enforceable rights to continue to occupy the premises after the expiration of their caretaker agreements. The court also held that the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke permission and take back possession of the premises was justified.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the Appellants were given 8 weeks to vacate the premises.
JUDGMENT :
1. By these appeals, Appellants challenge orders dated 04.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court dismissing Notice of Motion Nos. 3372 of 2023 and 3373 of 2023. The City Civil Court has refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the Appellants / Plaintiffs to restrain the Respondent-Municipal Corporation from implementing or enforcing the Revocation Letters dated 13th July 2023 and / or from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit premises.
2. The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) has constructed two structures bearing Gymnasium Centre No. 1 and Gymnasium Centre No. 2 by utilizing funds of a Member of Parliament at Yusuf Meher Ali Recreation Ground, Gilbert Hill, Andheri (West) Mumbai. The Municipal Corporation decided to make available the said two Gymnasium Centres to the members of public. At the request of the Appellants in Appeal no. 851 of 2023 (Samantawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation), the Municipal Corporation decided to allot Gymnasium Centre no.1 to it. Accordingly, agreement for the period from 01.12.2011 to 30.10.2012 was executed with Samantawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation in respect of Gymnasium Centre No.1 on caretaker basis. It appears that Gymnasium Centre no.1 remained closed for repairing works during 2012 to 2016. Later, Gymnasium Centre No. 1 was again allotted to Samantawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation and Accordingly, an agreement came to be executed on 1st March 2016 in respect of period from 1 March 2016 to 28 February 2017. The agreement was renewed from time to time from by executing agreements for the period 4 December 2017 to 3 November 2018 and 4 October 2019 to 3 September 2020. After 3 September 2020, no further agreement has been executed with Samatawadi Mahila Vikas Foundation.
3. Similarly, Gymnasium Centre No. 2 was allotted to Appellant in AO No. 852 of 2023-Mumbaikar Peace and Welfare Society for the year 2016-2017 and the same was continued from time to time and remained in force up to 31.07.2020. No further agreement is executed with Mumbaikar Peace and Welfare Society after 31.07.2020.
4. The Respondent-Municipal Corporation issued Show Cause Notices to both the Appellants on 7 November 2022 stating that the Municipal Corporation had received complaints about handing over Gymnasiums to third party on rental basis. It appears that the notices were issued on account of complaints made by one Shri Asif Sayyed. Responses were sought within 7 days. Both the Appellants submitted replies to the show cause notices on 14.11.2022 denying the allegations therein. The Municipal Corporation apparently conducted site inspection of both the Gymnasiums on 21.01.2023 and found that both the Appellants were operating the same. Accordingly, the complainant Shri Asif Sayyed was informed vide letter dated 26 April 2023 that the Appellants were found to be operating Gymnasiums during visit conducted on 21.01.2023. While Appellants were under impression that the issue was given a quietus, suddenly the Municipal Corporation issued Revocation Letters dated 13.07.2023 stating that the occupation of Gymnasiums by Appellants was illegal after expiry of the tenure of the agreements. It was further alleged that the Gymnasium Centres were being misused by another agency M/s. A S Fitness Factory. It was further alleged that Appellants had unauthorisedly added some construction. Accordingly, the Municipal Corporation revoked the permission for use of Gymnasium Centre Nos. 1 and 2 and informed the Appellants that possession thereof would be taken over by the Municipal Corporation. Both Appellants were called upon to hand over the Gymnasium Centres as per clause 32 of the agreements within of 7 days.
5. Appellants approached the City Civil Court by filing LC Suit Nos. 2505 of 2023 and 2506 of 2023. In their suits, they filed Notices of Motion Nos. 3372 of 2023 and 3371 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction to restrain Municipal Corporation from acting upon Revocation Letters dated 13.0
Caretakers cannot acquire any interest in the property they are permitted to occupy gratuitously, and the Municipal Corporation's decision to revoke permission and take back possession of the premise....
The expiration of a lease does not justify the arbitrary eviction of occupants from property designated for public recreational use, recognizing residents' statutory rights in housing schemes.
The judgment established that matters purely contractual in nature and not involving public law elements may not be addressed through a writ under Article 226, especially when a statutory remedy is a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit detailed fact-finding inquiries and leading of e....
The court established that the issuance of eviction notices under the Public Premises Act requires the Estate Officer to demonstrate prima facie satisfaction based on adequate material, and that publ....
Public bodies must act fairly and in public interest when terminating tenancies, and the grounds for eviction must be substantiated; mere termination does not automatically render an occupant unautho....
The Municipality lacks authority to initiate eviction proceedings without a gift deed for public land, confirming that prior claims do not legally restrict subsequent challenges to jurisdiction.
Possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law, and the exercise of discretion in granting injunctions must consider established possession and potential irreparable harm.
The suit for possession was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title as the plaintiff's title was not challenged, and the appellant's possessory claim was derived from a lease deed with a ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
