Bombay High Court
Mayank Bharat Soni vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 17 May, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:8320-DB
18_wpl_16670_2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.16670 OF 2024
Mayank Bharat Soni and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Ashok R Pande with Mr. Shobhit Shukla for the Petitioners.
Smt. Racheeta Dhuru with Ms Shilpa Redkar i/b. Mr. Sunil Sonawane for
Respondent-BMC.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
(VACATION COURT) DATED : 17 MAY 2024.
PC:
1. By this petition, Petitioners challenge notice dated 6 May 2024 issued by the Respondents -Municipal Corporation under provisions of Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
2. It appears that before issuing the notice dated 6 May 2024, the Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 353-B to the landlord and tenants on 5 January 2024. It is the contention of Respondent-
Digitally Municipal Corporation that despite service of notice dated 5 January 2024 signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date:
under Section 353-B and reminder dated 27 February 2024, the tenants 2024.05.17 17:50:29 +0530 failed to submit structural audit report. On the contrary, our attention is invited to the structural audit report of Sardar Patel College of Engineering Megha 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 20:49:19 ::: 18_wpl_16670_2024.docx (SPCE) at the behest of landlord, which classifies the subject building in C-1 category. The SPCE apparently conducted site inspection during March and April 2024. According to the Municipal Corporation, the impugned notice under Section 354 is issued on 6 May 2024 consequent to structural audit report of SPCE classifying the building in C-1 category.
3. Mr. Pande, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that Petitioners-tenants were not aware about notice dated 5 January 2024 or reminder dated 27 February 2024. This is difficult to believe. This is because when a similar notice was issued on 7 January 2022 under Section 353(B) of the MMC Act, the tenants had acted upon the same and submitted structural audit report of M/s. Cementone Consultant and Engineers classifying the building in C2-B category. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Petitioners-tenants were unaware about the notice dated 5 January 2024 or reminder dated 27 February 2024.
4. Be that as it may, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation appears to have acted on structural audit report submitted at the behest of the landlord. The Petitioners-tenants ought to have submitted their structural audit report after issuance of notice dated 5 January 2024. Though in ordinary course, this Court would not have interfered in the impugned notice, since structural audit report submitted at the behest of Petitioners-tenants in the year 2022 calssified the building in C2-B category, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to Petitiones to submit their own structural audit report. Same shall be submitted within a period of four Megha 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 20:49:19 ::: 18_wpl_16670_2024.docx weeks. In the event structural audit report submitted at the behest of the Petitioners is conflicting with the report submitted by the landlord, matter will have to be necessarily sent to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in terms of guidelines framed by Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In the event structural audit report submitted at the behest of the tenants classifies the subject building in C-1 category, building will have to be immediately vacated.
5. It appears that Petitioners have given an undertaking in paragraph 20 of the Petition, which reads thus:-
"20. The Petitioners submit that the building is in a very sound and good condition and the Petitioners do find that there is no need for the Petitioners to vacate their respective tenanted premises for the purpose of repairing of the suit building. The Petitioners undertake to this Hon'ble Court that it is the Petitioners and all other tenants of the suit building shall be responsible for any damages or loss caused to the life of any person in case the Petitioners said statement proves to be incorrect and in case if any such incident happens the Petitioners state that the Petitioners are living in the said building with their family members and therefore they are more concerned with their safety and therefore the Petitioners find that the contents of the said notice under section 354 of the MMC Act is absolutely incorrect and it was issued at the behest of the Respondent No.4 just to get the premises vacated and just to give benefit to the Respondent No.4 as stated hereinabove."
6. Accordingly, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation shall not act on impugned notice dated 6 May 2024 upto 30 June 2024 to enable the Petitioners to submit their own structural audit report. It is however, Megha 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 20:49:19 ::: 18_wpl_16670_2024.docx clarified that occupation of the building by the Petitioners in the interim period would be on their sole responsibility and that no other person including the landlord shall be held responsible for any mishap occurring in respect of the subject building.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. ] [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Megha 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 17/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 20:49:19 :::