Bombay High Court Allows Tenant's Appeal Against Demolition Order in MMC Act Case — Failure to Issue Notice to Owner and Lack of Personal Hearing Violates Natural Justice. Tenant in Possession Since Prior to 1987 Entitled to Hearing Before Demolition Under Section 351 of MMC Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 18
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, a tenant in possession of premises since prior to 1987, challenged a show cause notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) and sought an injunction against demolition. The trial court refused ad-interim relief on 21.3.2013. The appellant had filed a reply to the show cause notice on 27.2.2013, requesting a personal hearing, and contended that no notice was served on the owner. The Assistant Commissioner passed a single-line order without giving an opportunity of hearing. The High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner must pass a reasoned order after hearing the occupier, and the trial court cannot supply reasons not recorded by the authority. The court also noted that the appellant had been in possession since before 1987 and had made a statement that the property could be regularised. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to give a personal hearing to the appellant before passing any final order, with status quo to be maintained for four weeks.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Demolition of Unauthorised Structure - Section 351 MMC Act - Show Cause Notice - The Assistant Commissioner must pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the occupier/tenant, and the court cannot supply reasons not recorded by the authority. The failure to issue notice to the owner and lack of personal hearing vitiates the demolition order. (Paras 4-5)

B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Appeal from Order - The trial court's refusal to grant ad-interim relief was set aside as the Assistant Commissioner's order was not reasoned and the tenant had been in possession since prior to 1987. (Paras 2-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Assistant Commissioner can pass a demolition order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the tenant and without issuing show cause notice to the owner, and whether the trial court can supply reasons not recorded by the authority.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.3.2013 is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to give a personal hearing to the appellant before passing any final order in the matter. The respondent to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Principles of natural justice
  • opportunity of hearing
  • reasoned order
  • show cause notice under Section 351 MMC Act
  • tenant's right to be heard before demolition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 194

Appeal from Order No. 361 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 441 of 2013

2013-08-30

Anoop V. Mohta

2013:BHC-AS:21243

Mr. J.J. Shah for Appellant, Mr. S.K. Sonawane for Respondent-Corporation

Mr. Arvind Pradhanbhai Dama

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal from order refusing ad-interim injunction against demolition of unauthorised structure under Section 351 MMC Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought injunction against demolition and quashing of show cause notice.

Filing Reason

The Municipal Corporation threatened to demolish the appellant's premises based on a show cause notice under Section 351 MMC Act.

Previous Decisions

Trial court refused ad-interim relief on 21.3.2013.

Issues

Whether the Assistant Commissioner can pass a demolition order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the tenant and without issuing show cause notice to the owner. Whether the trial court can supply reasons not recorded by the authority in the impugned order.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that he is a tenant in possession since prior to 1987, paying rent regularly, and that no show cause notice was served on the owner. He requested a personal hearing before any order. Respondent-Corporation contended that the structure was unauthorised and the show cause notice was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Assistant Commissioner must pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the occupier/tenant, and the court cannot supply reasons not recorded by the authority. Failure to issue notice to the owner and lack of personal hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The Assistant Commissioner, in my view, just cannot pass single line order without giving an opportunity of hearing. The learned Court cannot give reasons for the first time which were not provided and/or given by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the show cause notice in issue.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit seeking injunction against demolition. The trial court refused ad-interim relief on 21.3.2013. The appellant then filed the present appeal from order.

Acts & Sections

  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act): Section 351
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Tenant's Appeal Against Demolition Order in MMC Act Case — Failure to Issue Notice to Owner and Lack of Personal Hearing Violates Natural Justice. Tenant in Possession Since Prior to 1987 Entitled to Hearing Before Demoliti...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Remand Order in Service Dispute -- Matter Remanded Back to High Court for Comprehensive Consideration of All Issues