- Case
- M/S. MEHTA AND CO. THR. ITS PARTNER MR. ADARSH VARMA v. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THR. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER (Bombay High Court, 04-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Transfer of Property Act, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Principles of Natural Justice.
Facts: M/s. Mehta & Co., a provider of charitable services (food and shelter to cancer patients near Tata Memorial Hospital), had its structure demolished by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) during a redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(9) of DCPR 2034. The plaintiff's entitlement to a permanent rehab component was undisputed as per Annexure-II. The corporation claimed the demolition was due to the plaintiff's non-cooperation and based on an order dated 18th October 2023. However, the plaintiff alleges the demolition was illegal, without proper notice, and carried out with undue haste.
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff filed L.C. Suit No. 73 of 2024 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai, seeking reconstruction of the demolished structure. The City Civil Court rejected the plaintiff's notice of motion. The plaintiff then filed an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the lower court's refusal to grant interim relief, mainly the prayer for reconstruction.
Issue: Was the demolition of the plaintiff's structure by the MCGM legal and justified, considering the plaintiff's entitlement to rehabilitation, the lack of proper notice, and the principles of natural justice? Is the plaintiff entitled to a mandatory injunction for restoration or temporary alternate accommodation?
Holding: The High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the City Civil Court's order. The Court directed the MCGM to provide temporary alternate accommodation equivalent to 1319.97 sq.ft to the plaintiff within four weeks and awarded costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The Court refused to stay the implementation of the order.
Reasoning: The Court found the corporation's actions to be high-handed, arbitrary, and malafide, violating the principles of natural justice and disregarding the plaintiff's entitlement to rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that the corporation failed to follow due process, including providing proper notice and alternate accommodation before demolition. The Court noted that the internal communication relied upon by the corporation to justify the demolition was prepared hastily and that the corporation's officers showed disregard for the court's proceedings. The Court balanced the equities by granting temporary alternate accommodation instead of immediate reconstruction, considering the rights of other occupants in the redevelopment scheme. The court stated, "the action of demolition in this case is highly arbitrary and malafide, as no due process has been followed."
