DIWANCHAND GUPTA Vs. N M SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above four petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order dated November 28, 1969 passed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in two applications filed under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The said two applications were filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in special civil application No. 259 of 1970, who own the premises bearing No. 61. Clive Road, Danabunder Bombay No. 9 consisting of a ground floor and two upper floors. Municipal Application No. 174/m of 1966 was filed against 17 tenants, one of whom is the petitioner in special civil application No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No. 259 of 1970. He was respondent No 15 in the application. Municipal application No. 175/m of 1966 was filed against 16 respondents mentioned therein, of whom the petitioners in special civil application Nos. 744, 745 and 750 were some of the respondents. They were described as occupants, who were not the tenants of the owners.

(2.) IN both the applications respondents Nos. 2 to 8 in special civil application No. 259 of 1970 (who will be hereinafter described as "the owners") stated that they were served with a notice bearing No. 18 dated June 11, 1965 from the Assistant Engineer, Division B, Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is as follows :-

(3.) THE petitioners in these special civil applications resisted the owners' applications by filing affidavits in reply to the applications contending inter alia that the applications were not properly filed, that they were belated and mala fide, that the owners had got the notice issued in collusion with Municipal officials with a view to get rid of the petitioners and other occupiers and thereafter to sell the plot as an open plot fetching a fabulous price or to reconstruct on it and let the same out to others free of any claim of the tenants, that the aforesaid notice purported to have been issued by the Assistant Engineer was invalid inasmuch as the signatory to the notice had no legal and valid authority to issue it and the notice was arbitrary, capricious and mala fide and that it was not expedient to pull down the tenements let out to the petitioners.