1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8695 OF 2007 Smt.Prabhadevi Ramanand Pandey ..Petitioner V/s. Shri.Sadashiv Shankar Thanekar & ors ..Respondents Mr.P.J.Pawar, advocate, for petitioner Mr.Gautam T. Kamble h/f.Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.R.S.Apte, advocate, for respondent No.5 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2008 P.C. . The petitioner had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2007 against the original defendant Nos.1 to 4, who are landlords and the defendant No.5, who is the Thane Municipal Corporation. 2. It is her case that her husband was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant. Her husband was running a dairy firm known as “Ramanand Dairy Firm” and also residing in the premises since 1948. She relied upon several documents to evidence her possession. Her grievance is that despite being 2 rent being regularly paid, the landlords did not carry out the necessary repairs and therefore, she had to complain to the Thane Municipal Corporation and local police station. It is her grievance that the landlords have not been taking any steps with regard to the repairs to the premises. She submits in the plaint that the officers from the Thane Municipal Corporation came to the site on 22nd December, 2006 and threatened demolition of the suit premises. In such circumstances, she filed a suit for a declaration that the threat allegedly given by the Thane Municipal Corporation is illegal and void and the landlords be restrained by an order of injunction not restrain or interfere in any manner her from carrying out any repairs to the structure or demolishing the suit premises. 3. A temporary injunction application was filed which was opposed and after hearing both the sides came to be rejected by the Trial Court. 4. Even, the appeal has been rejected. 3 5. Prima facie, the Courts below are right in observing that the plaintiff does not have any repair permission. One notice was issued by the Thane Municipal Corporation on 6th May, 2006 and thereafter, the plaintiff has moved in the matter, before that, she has been carrying on correspondence with the landlords. She does not dispute that the premises are dilapidated and require extensive repairs. 6. The net result of the request of the plaintiff would be that the Thane Municipal Corporation would be prevented from carrying out its statutory duty. The Thane Municipal Corporation, considering location of the premises, thought it fit to move in the matter so that not only the petitioner/original plaintiff before me but occupants of adjoining building and passers by are protected. Such being nature of the duty that the Thane Municipal Corporation must perform in law, the Courts below were right in refusing to grant any injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The (prima facie) 4 conclusions being in consonence with the materials produced, they require no interference in Writ Jurisdiction. 7. However, if the petitioner has any apprehension with regard to her rights as tenant being in jeopardy, she can file substantive proceedings to assert these rights and based upon them, claim, appropriate relief against the landlords. She can also adopt appropriate proceedings in case the premises are re-constructed and that the landlords do not make any arrangement at site. Petition is dismissed with this liberty. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)