Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Esther Manickam, was a tenant in Flat No.A2, Ground floor, Ruia Building, Juhu, Mumbai, paying rent less than Rs.50 per month. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to pull down the building. The appellant filed a suit challenging the notice and seeking a permanent alternate accommodation, along with a notice of motion for interim relief to restrain the respondents from taking further action. The learned City Civil Court Judge refused to grant ad interim relief on 22 August 2013. The appellant appealed. The High Court noted that all other 13 tenants had already vacated the premises after being compensated by respondent No.2 at the market rate of about Rs.28,000 per square feet, and had filed consent terms in the eviction suit filed by respondent No.2. The appellant alone refused to vacate despite an offer of compensation of about Rs.1 crore. The court held that the appellant had no prima facie case, the balance of convenience was against granting injunction, and the tenant could not hold the development to ransom. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Tenant's Rights - Injunction Against Demolition - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 354 - Tenant occupying premises at rent less than Rs.50 per month refused to vacate despite offer of compensation of about Rs.1 crore and market rate of Rs.28,000 per sq.ft. - All other 13 tenants vacated on consent terms - Court held that tenant cannot hold development to ransom and no prima facie case for injunction exists - Balance of convenience in favour of demolition (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a tenant who is offered market rate compensation can restrain demolition of the building by seeking injunction, and whether the court should grant ad interim relief in such circumstances.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the trial court refusing ad interim relief is confirmed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Tenant's right to alternate accommodation is not absolute
- Court cannot restrain demolition when all other tenants have vacated on compensation
- Balance of convenience lies with developer and corporation
- No prima facie case for injunction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (09) 63
Appeal from Order (Stamp) No. 23627 of 2013 with CAAST/23628/2013
Mr. Vatsal Shah with Ms. Asha Bhuta i/by M/s. Bhuta Associates for the Appellant, Mr. S.K. Sonawane for respondent No.1 Corporation, Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.J. Thorat for respondent No.2
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, M/s. Blue Estate Private Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal from order refusing ad interim injunction in a suit challenging demolition notice under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought ad interim relief restraining respondents from taking further action including pulling down the suit premises, and sought permanent alternate accommodation.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the notice to pull down the building and sought injunction to prevent demolition without providing alternate accommodation.
Previous Decisions
The learned City Civil Court Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai, refused to grant ad interim relief by order dated 22 August 2013. The suit and notice of motion are still pending.
Issues
Whether the appellant has a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction against demolition.
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction or allowing demolition.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that as a tenant, she is entitled to alternate permanent accommodation before demolition.
Respondents argued that all other 13 tenants have vacated on receiving market rate compensation, and the appellant is refusing despite offer of about Rs.1 crore.
Ratio Decidendi
A tenant who is offered market rate compensation cannot restrain demolition of the building by seeking injunction when all other tenants have vacated on similar terms. The tenant cannot hold development to ransom. No prima facie case for injunction exists, and balance of convenience is against granting such relief.
Judgment Excerpts
The tenant who is in occupation of a premises by paying rent less than Rs.50/ per month, not willing to vacate the premises though offer is made to compensate by paying about Rupees one crore and more.
Admittedly, all other 13 tenants have already vacated as Respondent No.2 compensated them by paying at the market rate of about Rs.28,000/ per square feet.
The Appellant, on the contrary, preferred the Suit some time in August 2013 seeking restraintment order against the Respondents/Defendants inspite of above undisputed position on record that except the Appellant, no one else is in occupation of the premises.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a suit in August 2013 in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, challenging a demolition notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and seeking permanent alternate accommodation. A notice of motion for interim relief was filed. The trial court refused ad interim relief on 22 August 2013. The appellant filed the present appeal from order on 27 September 2013, which was heard and dismissed by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 354
