Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sumitra Shashikant Khokhani, Vishesh Shashikant Khokhani, and Sanjay Shashikant Khokhani, were occupants of room No. D-4 admeasuring 240 sq. ft. in a building at Amrut Bhuvan, Khokhani Lane, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai. The building was in dilapidated condition, and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) for demolition. The other tenants had already surrendered their tenancy and vacated. The appellants filed a suit challenging the notice and sought an injunction to restrain demolition and for reconstruction of the room. The trial court dismissed their Notice of Motion on 24 September 2013. The appellants appealed. The High Court noted that the room had already been demolished, and the prayer for reconstruction could not be granted at the interim stage. The development agreement for the larger area of 1455 sq. meters was not in dispute and was not the subject matter of the suit. The Court held that the notice under Section 354 was valid and the appellants were merely trying to obstruct the development project. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim relief granted earlier was not continued.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Notice under Section 354 of MMC Act - Service of Notice - The notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was challenged on the ground of lack of specific service to the occupier-plaintiffs. The Court held that the notice was valid and the challenge was without merit, as the plaintiffs were aware of the proceedings and the building was in dilapidated condition. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Injunction - Reconstruction of Demolished Premises - The plaintiffs sought an injunction to reconstruct a room that had already been demolished. The Court held that such a prayer for reconstruction cannot be granted at the interim stage, especially when the development agreement covering the larger area was not in dispute and the plaintiffs were only obstructing the project. (Paras 2-4) C) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - The Court found that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiffs, as the other tenants had already vacated and the development of the larger area was being held up. The interim relief granted earlier was not continued. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act was invalid for want of specific service to the occupier-plaintiffs, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for reconstruction of the demolished room.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the trial court dated 24 September 2013 dismissing the Notice of Motion is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Notice to occupier
- Service of notice
- Injunction against demolition
- Reconstruction of demolished premises
- Development agreement not subject matter of suit
