MOHAN YESHWANT PADAWE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four Petitioners. They came to court in 2018, five years ago now, claiming that water and electricity to their premises was being abruptly disconnected. They said that they had received notices under Sec. 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("MMC Act") that the structures in which they occupied premises were dilapidated and needed to be pulled down. Through the Petition, apart from the municipal authorities, a developer named Sanghavi Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd was Respondent No. 4 and then Respondent Nos. 5 to 40 were individuals said to also be residing there.

(2.) The Petition as originally filed proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 50 were the original "residents" of this plot of land, City Survey No. 13, FT No. 1274, TPS IV, Mahim, G/ South Ward Mumbai - 400 016. There was no clear statement about the basis on which these persons were entitled to occupation, whether as tenants or otherwise.

(3.) More importantly, the Petition proceeded directly in paragraph 2 itself, to a narrative about a redevelopment proposal. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is materially misleading because it said that the occupants decided to redevelop the building, postulating that they had some right in law to do so to begin with. This will become important shortly. There is a reference to an agreement of 7/2/2009. The fact that the Petitioners and others like them were tenants in a MHADA chawl is not mentioned. The fact that the property is privately owned by Respondent Nos. 41 to 43 is not mentioned. The owners, the Nagwekars were not even joined as a parties to the Petition. It was only on their intervention that very recently in 2023, they came to be joined to the petition.