ASIAN RUBBER WORKS AND ANOTHER Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, R/SOUTH WARD, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is about the illegal demolition of the bungalow admeasuring 5,500 sq.ft. more particularly described in paragraph2 of the petition. According to the case of the petitioner, the second respondent Trust was the landlord of the petitioners. There is a challenge in this petition to a notice dated 6th June 2014 issued by the first respondent who is the Assistant Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in exercise of the powers under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "the said Act").

(2.) The petitioners have referred to a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in a suit filed by the second respondent. The decree is for possession of the bungalow described in paragraph2 of the petition (for short "the subject bungalow"). The decree was passed on the grounds of bonafide requirement, nuisance and annoyance and acquisition of alternate accommodation. The said decree was challenged by the petitioners by preferring an appeal before the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. Though in the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the decree for possession was confirmed by the appellate Bench, the same was confirmed only on the ground of alleged subletting and the other grounds were negatived. Writ Petition No.8532/2004 filed by the petitioners for challenging the decrees passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court has been admitted by the learned single Judge of this Court in which stay has been granted to the execution of the decree.

(3.) The case made out in the petition is that on 24th October 2014 when the second petitioner was away from the subject bungalow, the same was demolished. It is alleged that by the time the second petitioner came back, the first floor was already demolished. It is alleged that while the second petitioner was trying to collect information, some persons at the instance of the first respondent came and tried to demolish the rest of the subject bungalow. However, the second petitioner could some how prevent them from demolishing the rest of the structure. After learning that the part of the subject bungalow was demolished on the basis of the notice dated 6th June 2014 issued under section 354 of the said Act, on 29th October 2014, the petitioners applied for a copy of the said notice. On the basis of the said application, a copy of the impugned notice dated 6th June 2014 was provided to the petitioners. Thereafter, the present petition was presented for filing on 1st November 2014 and lodged on 3rd November 2014. An additional affidavit has been affirmed on 1st November 2014 by the second petitioner in which he has stated that in the afternoon of 1st November 2014, the rest of the bungalow was demolished. Apart from seeking quashing of the said notice, there is a prayer made for seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to restore the subject bungalow. In the alternative, a prayer is made for permitting the petitioners to construct the subject bungalow. Another prayer is to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioners.