Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satish Dalichand Shah, claimed to be a monthly tenant of a shop premises in Mumbai. On 23rd May, 1994, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging that the appellant had carried out an unauthorized extension of 1.30m x 4.30m in front of the shop and requiring him to show cause why it should not be removed. The appellant replied on 31st May, 1994 requesting a hearing. However, no further action was taken by the Corporation until 2001. On 5th February, 2001, the appellant filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court seeking a declaration that the notice was illegal and an injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the extension. The trial court framed a preliminary issue on limitation and held that the suit was barred by limitation, dismissing it. The appellant appealed to the High Court in First Appeal No.1192 of 2001, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd November, 2001. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench considered the issue of limitation. The appellant argued that the cause of action arose only when the Corporation threatened to take action in 2001, but the court found that the notice itself gave rise to the cause of action for seeking a declaration that it was illegal. Since the suit was filed more than three years after the notice, it was barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also noted that the appellant's reply did not change the accrual of cause of action. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, confirming the orders of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Cause of Action - Notice under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The appellant received a notice on 23rd May, 1994 alleging unauthorized extension and requiring show cause. The suit was filed on 5th February, 2001 seeking declaration that the notice was illegal and injunction against demolition. The court held that the cause of action arose on the date of the notice, and the suit filed beyond three years was barred by limitation. The appeal against the dismissal of the suit was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the appellant challenging the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge confirming the trial court's dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation is upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 58
- Section 351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- cause of action accrues on date of notice
- suit for declaration and injunction barred after three years
