The court affirmed that long-standing residential occupancy rights must be respected and that statutory notices claiming unauthorized structures must be substantiated with clear and compelling evidence.

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gharte, learned Advocate for Appellants / Applicants and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents – BMC.

2. This is a group of six cases namely Appeals From Order which are challenging separate identical orders all dated 19.05.2025 passed by the Trial Court. They are ad-interim orders passed in Notice of Motion filed by Plaintiffs / Appellants before the Trial Court on consideration of the case made out by Plaintiffs in the Suit plaint.

3. Plaintiffs have challenged legality of statutory notices issued under Section 53 of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (for short ‘MRTP Act’) by the Corporation qua their structures. Identical notices have been issued which are all dated 15.03.2025, copies of which are appended at Exhibit ‘U’ to the Appeal From Order. The impugned notices are issued under Section 53 (1) read with Section 52(1)(h) and (d) of the MRTP Act. The notices have been replied to by all Plaintiffs on 27.03.2025 separately. Pursuant to this Designated Officer of the Corporation has passed a speaking order dated 29.04.2025. The speaking order is appended at Exhibit ‘W’ – page No.171 to the Appeal From Order in Appeal From Order No.333 of 2025. Prima facie, perusal of the speaking order reveals that without hearing the Plaintiffs, the speaking order has been passed by the Designated Officer, Ward ‘T’ of the Corporation. It is also seen that the reply given by Plaintiffs to the impugned notice has not even been considered by the Designated Officer since the speaking order is prima facie sans without reasons.

4. Be that as it may, Plaintiffs being aggrieved have filed the Suit proceedings on the premise that the impugned action initiated by the Corporation is at the behest of the landlord of the suit property who is a Developer. Common identical grounds have been pleaded by Plaintiffs in all Suit proceedings, inter alia, stating that the notice structures have been in existence since prior to 1962 and Plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-title have been in possession and occupation of the notice structures since then. The notice structures in all six cases are residential rooms ad-measuring between 100 square feet to 200 square feet as belonging to and in occupation of Plaintiffs and their families situated in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl built by the Mhatre family, the erstwhile landlord of the said property prior to 2013.

5. After hearing Plaintiffs and perusing the record, on 01.12.2025 the following order was passed and the matters were posted for hearing to 15.12.2025 after directing the Municipal Corporation to file its Affidavit-in-Reply to the case of Plaintiffs made out in the Appeal From Order and Interim Application. For reference and convenience, the order dated 01.12.2025 is reproduced below:-

“1. I have heard Mr. Gharte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for the BMC.

2. I have considered the facts of the present five Appeal from Orders before me. One of the Appeal from Order is not listed on board today that Appeal from Order is Appeal from Order No. 334 of 2025. The Appellant is Amol Pandrinath Vedak therein. It is taken on record and heard today. All six Appeal from Orders are on the same footing.

3. It is seen that the Appellants are plaintiffs before the Trial Court and are aggrieved with the ad-interim order dated 19/05/2025 which is prima facie identically passed in all the six suits. Hence, they have approached this Court. The