SHANTARAM BABU SHINGARE Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner - Shantaram Babu Shingare has impugned the notice issued to him by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ('MCGM') dated 11th August, 2020, calling upon him to vacate his room admeasuring approximately 156 sq.ft.. The Petitioner is required to vacate his room for a very limited period i.e. for three months to avert any mishap at the time of demolition of the ground + 11 storied building 'Pushpakunj'. The Petitioner's room and the building 'Pushpakunj' are both standing in the same compound i.e. on the same plot of land. The Court Receiver, High Court Bombay, is appointed Receiver in respect of the entire plot of land, including all the structures therein in Suit No.1957 of 1993, fled by Pushpakunj Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (Interveners herein) against the Respondent No.3 herein. The entire property is thus in the custody of this Court through the Court Receiver (custodia legis). The Court Receiver also obtained an Order from the Learned Single Judge of this Court directing MCGM to proceed with the demolition of the building 'Pushpakunj', which is in a dilapidated condition. The Petitioner has in the Writ Petition set out several grounds and has made several suggestions as to how the demolition of the building 'Pushpakunj' should take place without him being asked to vacate his room. However, the Sub-Engineer of MCGM has fled an Afdavit explaining why the submissions/suggestions of the Petitioner cannot be accepted and why the Petitioner should vacate his room for a limited period. Also, the Contractor who is appointed by MCGM to demolish the building 'Pushpakunj', has agreed to proceed with the demolition only if vacant possession of the building 'Pushpakunj' and the structures standing on the entire plot, is handed over to him.

(2.) The brief facts in the matter are as under :

(3.) In the above Writ Petition, Pushpakunj Co-op. Housing Society Limited, fled an Intervention Application setting out some of the relevant facts which are set out hereinabove. In their Application, the Interveners have submitted that they are entitled to develop the property through the Court Receiver and not the Respondent No.3. They have given two proposals to the Petitioner for his consideration. The frst proposal is that the Petitioner may vacate the said Room and allow the Society to redevelop the property, and provide him an area of 100 sq.ft. (which he had earlier agreed to accept from the Respondent No.3 under the Consent Terms fled before the Small Causes Court of Mumbai) and in the intervening period, the Society shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to him, in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation. The alternate proposal given to the Petitioner is that the Petitioner may vacate the said Room only for a limited period, i.e. only till the Building Pushpakunj is demolished and the debris removed, for which period the Society will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation.