MP 1 WP2265_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 2011 Swami Mohandasji Chela of Swami Uttamdasji ... Petitioner Versus Assistant Engineer (B and F) and others ... Respondents Ms Rajani Iyer, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. J. S. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms T. Puranik, Advocate for the Respondent BMC. Ms S. I. Joshi, Advocate for the Tenants Association. CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER 2011 P. C. : By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who is the owner of the building Tharu House, comprising of ground plus two-storey, on Plot No.769, Khar Pali Road, 3rd Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-52 (the said building), has impugned the notice dated 13th April, 2011 issued under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act calling upon him to carry out the repairs to the said building. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said notice does not set out any details as to what exactly is the scope of work which the Petitioner is required to carry out in respect of the said building. The Corporation was, therefore, called upon to produce its records and on perusal of the said records, it appeared that there were serious disputes between the owner of the building and the tenants. In view thereof, this Court deemed fit to issue notice to the Tenants Association and inter alia try to amicably resolve the issue pertaining to repairs, between the parties. 2. The said Tenants Association is now represented by an Advocate who has stated that the Tenants Association has already obtained a report from the MP 2 WP2265_11 Structural Engineer and have commenced repairs to the said building, and that, they shall complete the repairs within a period of six months from today at their own cost. However, they will be recovering the expenses to the extent of five years rent i.e. maintenance charges from the landlord. The learned Advocate appearing for the Tenants Association further states that no structural changes except replacing beams / columns in the said building shall be carried out by the Tenants Association and they shall also comply with the conditions set out by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in its letter dated 7th October 2011 issued to the Association. The said statements are accepted. 3. In view of the above, the following order is passed: a) The notice dated 13th April 2011 is set aside as being infructuous. b) The Tenants Association shall carry out repairs to the said building in accordance with the statements recorded and accepted in paragraph 2 above. b) A copy of this order shall be produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile Parle (W) as the prosecution initiated by the police authorities against the Petitioner is now required to be dropped. d) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 4. In the circumstances, no orders are passed on the draft Notice of Motion taken out by the Tenants Association and the same is accordingly disposed of. However, the learned Advocate for the Tenants Association undertakes to get the Notice of Motion numbered within a period of one week from today. The said undertaking is accepted. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J)