Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, occupants of a municipal corporation building, filed a writ petition challenging eviction proceedings initiated against them under Section 105-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The petitioners had earlier filed a civil suit in 2010 challenging the redevelopment scheme, but no interim relief was granted, and the motion was dismissed on 29 September 2014. Despite notice, the petitioners refused to vacate the premises, leading to eviction proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of civil suit and had not complied with interim orders. The conduct of the petitioners was found to be an abuse of the process of law. The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 25,000, payable to the Bombay High Court Advocates' Association Library Fund.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Eviction Proceedings - Section 105-B, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The petitioners challenged eviction proceedings initiated under Section 105-B of the MCGM Act. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy before the Civil Court and had not complied with interim orders passed by the trial court. The petition was dismissed with costs. (Paras 2-6)
B) Conduct of Petitioner - Abuse of Process - Interim Orders - The Court noted that the petitioners had filed a suit in 2010 but did not obtain any interim relief, and the motion was dismissed. The petitioners then filed the writ petition without complying with earlier orders. The Court held that the conduct of the petitioners amounted to an abuse of the process of law and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging eviction proceedings under Section 105-B of the MCGM Act should be entertained when the petitioners have an alternative remedy and have not complied with interim orders.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the Bombay High Court Advocates' Association Library Fund.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- alternative remedy
- eviction proceedings under Section 105-B of MCGM Act
- conduct of petitioner
- interim relief
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (10) 89
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.2335 OF 2014
Anoop V. Mohta, A.S. Gadkari
Mr. J.B. Mishra for the Petitioners, Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shobha Ajithkumar for the MCGM, Mr. Deepak Chitnis with Shirin Shaikh i/b M/s. Deepak Chitnis-Chiparikar & Co. for Respondent No.2, Mr. Bharat Zaveri for Respondent No.5
Rafique Ahmed Ansari, Abdul Latif Yasin Shaikh, Mohammed Salim Mohammed Yasin Shaikh, Abu Bakar Qadri
Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, Blue Pearl Developers
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging eviction proceedings under Section 105-B of the MCGM Act.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of eviction proceedings and stay of eviction.
Filing Reason
Petitioners refused to vacate municipal premises despite notice, leading to eviction proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Civil suit filed in 2010 challenging redevelopment scheme; interim relief not granted; motion dismissed on 29 September 2014.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists.
Whether the conduct of the petitioners amounts to abuse of process.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the eviction proceedings were illegal and they were entitled to permanent alternate accommodation.
Respondent No.2 argued that the petitioners were trying to halt the project and had no interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy and has not complied with interim orders; such conduct amounts to abuse of process.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners have filed a suit in the year 2010 and challenged the redevelopment scheme at municipal property in question as illegal, bad in law.
The eviction proceedings are pending before the concerned enquiry officer E ward Mumbai.
The conduct of the Petitioners whose intention as stated is nothing but to halt the project by all possible means.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed a civil suit in 2010 challenging redevelopment scheme; no interim relief granted; motion dismissed on 29 September 2014. Eviction proceedings under Section 105-B initiated. Writ petition filed on 28 August 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 105-B
