Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kuniyil Kumar Shankar, filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, dismissing his Notice of Motion No.1186 of 2016 in L.C. Suit No.375 of 2016. The appellant, a tenant in commercial premises bearing I.D. No.107, admeasuring 426.5 sq.ft., situated at Tiwari Chawl on land bearing C.T.S. No.33-B, sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC), from demolishing the suit premises without providing permanent alternate accommodation. The appellant claimed that he was in possession as a tenant since prior to 1961-62, paying rent regularly to the landlord, and that the land was private. The BMC had issued a notice on 25th July 2011 informing him that the land was required for the 'Road Over Bridge at Jogeshwari, Mumbai' project under the Maharashtra Urban Transport Project, and asked him to produce documents proving his eligibility for permanent alternate accommodation under the resettlement and rehabilitation policy. The appellant contended that he produced relevant documents, but the BMC threatened demolition. The trial court dismissed the notice of motion, leading to the appeal. The High Court noted that the appellant failed to produce any document to show his eligibility for alternate accommodation, such as proof of possession prior to a cutoff date or any entitlement under the policy. The court held that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case for interim injunction, as the balance of convenience was in favor of the BMC, which needed the land for a public project. The court also observed that the appellant did not produce any rent receipts or other documents to support his claim of tenancy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Right to Alternate Accommodation - Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy - The appellant, a tenant in commercial premises, sought interim injunction against demolition by Municipal Corporation for a road overbridge project, claiming entitlement to permanent alternate accommodation under the Maharashtra Urban Transport Project's resettlement policy. The court held that the appellant failed to produce any document to prove his eligibility, such as proof of possession prior to a cutoff date or any entitlement under the policy, and thus no prima facie case was made out. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court held that for grant of interim injunction, the plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable loss. Since the appellant did not produce any document to show his eligibility for alternate accommodation, the balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent-Municipal Corporation, which needed the land for a public project. (Paras 5-6) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Claimant's Failure to Produce Documents - The appellant claimed possession since prior to 1961-62 and payment of rent, but did not produce any rent receipts or other documents to support his claim. The court noted that the burden was on the appellant to prove his eligibility for alternate accommodation, and his failure to do so disentitled him to any interim relief. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-tenant is entitled to interim injunction restraining demolition of his commercial premises without providing permanent alternate accommodation, and whether he has made out a prima facie case for such relief.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai dated 8th September 2016 dismissing Notice of Motion No.1186 of 2016 is upheld.
Law Points
- Right to alternate accommodation
- resettlement and rehabilitation policy
- burden of proof on claimant
- public interest in infrastructure projects
- interim injunction against demolition
