1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2076 OF 2010 Orbit Corportion Ltd. & Anr. .. petitioners V/s The Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Milind Sathye, Sr.Advocate i/by V.C.Khatri for the petitioners. Ms.Priti Purandare for Respondent No.1. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 6th July, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. The facts which are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the plot of land which is subject matter of this petition was granted on lease to the predecessor of the petitioners by a Lease Deed dated 22.02.1916 for 999 years. Clause 13 of the lease deed dated 22.02.1916 reads as under:- “13. So often as the said premises or any part thereof shall by assignment or by death or by operation of law or otherwise howsoever become assigned or transferred for the whole of the terms hereby granted to cause every Assignment and every 2 Probate of a will or letters of administration Decree Order Certificate or other document effecting or evidencing the assignment or terms for to be left within four calender months after the date of such document and for seven days atleast at the office of the Board for the purpose of registration in the Board’s Estate Registers.” 2. The original lessees of the plot were Dossabhoy Hormusji Contractor and Femuras Dorabji Kapadia. It appears that they committed default in payment of taxes. Therefore the property was auctioned by the Corporation and it was purchased by Jagdish Amritlal Karia and Dilip Balachand Mehta. On record of the Corporation therefore the names of Jagdish Amritlal Karia and Dilip Balachand Mehta are recorded as lessees. Petitioner decided to purchase the leasehold rights in the plot from these two persons. Therefore an application was made to the Corporation after execution of deed of assignment in favour of the petitioners for taking the mutation entry in the record of the Corporation. 3. Corporation, instead of considering that application for mutation entry, cancelled the lease of the plot in favour of the petitioners. Relevant portion of the letter dated 29.08.2009 reads as under:- 3 “Further it is to be informed that as per recent policy approved by improvements Committee/ Corporation vide Resolution No.130 and 796 of 15.10.2008 and 11.11.2008 respectively the transfer of lease to third party is change in terms and conditions of existing lease, hence the existing lease stands automatically cancelled. Therefore, fresh lease deed is required to be executed as per prevailing terms and conditions of said policy.” 4. The short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of clause 13 of the lease deed it was open to the lessees to assign the leasehold rights. Therefore the Corporation was not at all justified in cancelling the lease. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the order of this Court dated 28.06.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.353 of 2011 in the case of Mukesh Sanghvi V/s.The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Others. We have heard learned counsel for the Corporation. She is not in a position to justify the letter/order dated 29.08.2009 in view of clause 13 of the lease deed. 6. In this view of the matter and in view of our order dated 4 28.06.2011 referred to above, in our opinion, petition will have to be allowed. Petition is allowed. Order dated 29.08.2009 is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner (Estates) is directed to mutate the names of the petitioners as lessees of the said plot. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)