1

ITEM NO.13 Court 11 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4441-4442/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-10-2020

in OS-WP-LD-VC No. 255/2019 and order dated 01-12-2020 in RP(L) No.

4666/2020 in W.P. (L) 4663 of 2020 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay)

ISHKRUPA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCITY LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.38589/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING

C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.38590/2021-EXEMPTION FROM

FILING O.T. )

Date : 22-03-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prashant Aher, Adv.

Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Petitioner is a Housing Society represented by the Members of

the Society, who are occupants of the buildings in question, which

have been declared as dilapidated and thus, the notices for

eviction were issued to the occupants of the buildings by the

Mumbai Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act. The matter has been engaging the

attention of the High Court since the year 2013. Finally, after

Digitally signed by

Neelam Gulati

Date: 2021.03.22

16:51:28 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the receipt of the report of the Technical Advisory Committee and

the independent Architecture appointed by the High Court, wherein

it was clarified that the buildings in question are in dilapidated

condition and should be demolished, the High Court declined to

interfere with the eviction notices issued by the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation.

Having heard Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing

for the Petitioner-Society, at great length, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order impugned in the Writ Petition.

Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel thereafter contended

that the Members/occupants of the buildings of the Society, shall

vacate the premises but they should be given an assurance that they

would be entitled to re-occupy the premises after the construction

is made.

Since these questions were not raised before the High Court

in the earlier proceedings as well as in the present proceeding, we

are not inclined to look into this question. However, we may only

observe that it shall be open to the Members/occupants of the

petitioner-society to take recourse to the legal remedy as may be

available in law.

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Leave Petitions

are dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)