DHIRUBHAI H. AMBANI Vs. DHANPATI THAKERSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision of this appeal which is directed against an order of the City Civil Court, Bombay, issuing an injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining him from carrying out any work of digging of land or laying of foundation columns or doing any other work of any nature whatsoever thereon turns upon the construction of the provisions of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with the provisions of Sections 354 and 499 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Corporation Act').

(2.) THE facts which have led to the suit filed by the respondents, who are trustees of a trust known as Khetsi Chatrabhuj Khiasi Ajani Shri Kutchi Dasa Oswal Jain Vidyalaya are not in dispute. The trust which has been referred to as the owners by the learned trial Judge admittedly owned the suit building which consisted of a ground floor and four upper floors which were in the occupation of thirty -two different occupiers. It was alleged in the suit that the Municipal Corporation issued a notice on February 13, 1973 under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act calling upon the owners to carry out certain repairs mentioned therein. The notice itself has however, not been produced either by the plaintiffs or the defendants. No repairs having been carried out, the occupiers made an application to the Bombay Building and Repairs Board, for a no objection certificate enabling them to carry out the repairs themselves. This is objection certificate was granted on April 29, 1976 and the Municipal Corporation also permitted those repairs to be carried out as contemplated by Section 499 of the Municipal Corporation Act. It is not in dispute that the repairs which were permitted to be carried out by the occupiers were the same which were directed to be carried out initially by the owners in the notice alleged to have been issued under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The occupiers wanted certain changes to be made in the premises by way of having one W.C., a washing place, a water tap, a water line separately on each floor, to which the owners did not have any objection if the occupiers were going to foot the bills. The occupiers thereafter approached the Municipal Corporation for permission to make these alterations which was also granted. Among the changes which were sought were replacement of the original roof by a R.C.C. roof.

(3.) IN this state of affairs, the occupiers applied to the Repairs Board on November 18, 1976 seeking reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 120 per sq. metre and approval of the Board was sought for carrying out repairs in R.C.C. to reduce the cost. The Board granted this permission on January 28, 1977 informing the occupiers that their proposal to complete the repairs to the building in all respects and then to approach the Board for reimbursement was approved. With regard to the proposal to carry out the work in R.C.C., the occupiers were advised to get the approval to the same from the Municipal Corporation. This permission was sought by the occupiers from the Municipal Corporation on February 4, 1977, and was granted on April J4, 1977. This permission was subject to certain conditions with which we are really not concerned in this appeal. It also does not seem to be in dispute that when this permission was sought by the occupiers, a plan of the building which was sought to be put up at the place where the original plinth was situated was submitted to the Corporation and a copy of the plan was returned by the Corporation. The repairs were accordingly started after the necessary approval was taken from the Central Railway Authorities whose no objection certificate was required as intimated by the Corporation.