Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Facts as narrated by the Petitioner before the Court :

4.1. In the year 2017, the Petitioner purchased Bungalow No. 5 at Chetak Row House No. 41, Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050 ('said Bungalow').
4.2. On 3rd October, 2018, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Assistant PA Nitin Jagtap - PA - Dhuri 9 / 166 WPL-3011-2020-Final.doc Commissioner of MCGM stating that the said Bungalow was 42 years old and that the Petitioner had carried out a structural audit, as per which the said Bungalow was categorized under C2-B category thereby implying that structural repairs were required to be carried out with eviction of the owners / occupiers. In her said letter, the Petitioner further stated that the Petitioner would like to carry out repairs under the supervision and guidance of the itructural Auditor. The Report of the itructural Auditor was also enclosed with the said letter, by which permission was sought to carry out the structural repairs.
4.3. The MCGM addressed a letter dated 30 th October, 2018, to the Petitioner stating that the structural repairs suggested by the Petitioner were major repairs and hence the remedial measures suggested by the itructural Consultant shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the itructural Consultant and a itability Certivcate to that efect shall be submitted to MCGM. The MCGM also recorded in the said letter that the same was issued without prejudice to the authenticity of the structure.
4.4. The MCGM addressed another letter dated 30th October, 2018, to the Petitioner stating that no permission was required for carrying out tenantable repairs under iection 342 of the Act.
4.5. The Petitioner had appointed M/s. Paras Consultant and M/s. Tara Enterprises as itructural Consultants for conducting the structural repairs. 4.6. M/s. Paras Consultant addressed a letter dated 17 th May, 2019, to the PA Nitin Jagtap - PA - Dhuri 10 / 166 WPL-3011-2020-Final.doc Petitioner stating that the structural repair work of the said Bungalow was completed as per the guidelines and under periodical supervision. M/s. Tara Enterprises issued a Certivcate dated 19th May, 2019, certifying that they had completed the structural repairs of the said Bungalow. To this Certivcate, was annexed a document containing the details of the works which were carried out.
4.7. The Petitioner addressed a letter dated 24 th May, 2019, to the Assistant Commissioner of MCGM enclosing the Certivcate issued by M/s. Paras Consultant, which certives that the said Bungalow was sound, safe and vt for habitation after completion of the structural repair work.
4.8. The Petitioner thereafter wanted to fully renovate the said Bungalow.

ihe therefore addressed a letter dated 31st July, 2019, to the Chairman / iecretary of Pali Hill Residents Association requesting for permission to carry out renovation work in the said Bungalow from 09.00 a.m. to 08.00 p.m. 4.9. The Petitioner also addressed a letter to the iecretary of Chetak Cooperative Housing iociety stating that there was continuous leakage from the terrace of the Row House No. 6 belonging to ihri Malhotra, which was causing a hindrance to the renovation work in the Petitioner's Bungalow. The Petitioner requested for permission to resolve and vx the leakage at the earliest. The permissions as sought by the Petitioner were granted on 6th August, 2019. 4.10. The entire correspondence referred to in Paragraphs 4.2. to 4.9. above, is placed before the Court.