SURENDRA VISHNU MASURKAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the above writ petition is that the respondent No. 2 - Arvindkumar H. Jain ( 'Landlord/Developer ') has with the help of the Officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ( 'MCGM ') indulged in unfair and illegal conduct which has caused harm, injury and prejudice to the petitioner/Tenant. It is alleged that though the building named 'Gayatri Bhuvan ' at Malad (West), Mumbai was demolished by the MCGM pursuant to a Notice issued under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ( ' the Act '), the MCGM has contrary to the conditions set out in its I.O.D., and also contrary to the Order of this Court dated 23rd June, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014, and Clause 1.15 of the "Guidelines for declaring private and Municipal buildings as C-1 category (Dangerous, Unsafe) " framed by MCGM pursuant to the said Order, issueda Commencement Certificate under section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 to the Landlord/Developerinthe absence of an agreement providing a permanent alternate accommodation to the petitioner. It is submitted that such conduct on the part of the MCGM has emboldened the Landlord/Developer to the extent that he has now not only brazenly refused to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner on the terms offered to all the other tenants of the demolished building but has also in his Affidavit dared to deprive the petitioner of his permanent alternate accommodation, which he is entitled to in law, unless the petitioner undertakes to pay him the alleged expenses and penalty levied upon him by the MCGM for demolishing the building under section 354 of the Act.

(2.) The MCGM has also filed an Affidavit admitting that the Landlord/Developer has before obtaining an Occupation Certificate from the MCGM qua the new construction, illegally andunauthorizedly putcertain tenants in occupation of the same, for which the MCGM is in the process of taking legal action against the Landlord/Developer.

(3.) The petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction to the MCGMto issue a 'Stop Work ' Notice to the Landlord/Developer and to appoint a Court Receiver in respect of the project. However, since the construction is already completed and we are now informed that an Occupation Certificate has been issued by the MCGM on 24th October, 2018, we are not inclined to pass any order which will inconvenience the othertenants/flat purchasers. However, as we would like to ensure that justice is meted out to the petitioner, we will be moulding the reliefs as set out hereinafter.