IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO PETITION NO PETITION NO.5525 OF 2008 5525 OF 2008 5525 OF 2008 Kiritkumar Dresswala ... Petitioner. Vs. Shantiniketan Chs Ltd ... Respondents. Mr Rakesh Dave, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms Dipti Patkar i/b Chako Joseph, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 04.02. 2009. 04.02. 2009. 04.02. 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused petition. 2. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, whereby A.O. No. 1182 of 2007 was allowed; and the Respondent was restrained from obstructing Appellant-society from carrying out structural repairs to the beams and columns and other internal repairs in the subject premises, as advised by the Consulting Architects. ( 2 ) 3. During the course of hearing, by consent of parties S + P Archietcts were appointed to inspect the premises in dispute with direction to submit a report to this Court. Accordingly, the report submitted by the said Architects reads as under: "The premises in question is a Garment Store on the ground floor of the society-building. About 75% of all the walls columns beams are covered with cupboards and the main ceiling slab bottom is also covered with a false ceiling. The building is apparently RCC frame structure, which is approximately 50 years old. The building has been repaired recently under supervision of the Architectural Consultant M/s Sutaria, except for the premises in question i.e. the Garment Store." As stated above the original RCC columns and ceiling slab has been covered with cupboards and false ceiling and only about 25% of the original RCC columns, beams and ceiling areas which is not covered, have been inspected. It is found that there are structural cracks in the beams due to rusting of reinforcement and such damages are required to be repaired. The 75% of surface area of the RCC columns, beams and original ceiling could not be inspected, for the reasons stated ( 3 ) as above and hence it is necessary to remove the cupboards and false ceiling, firstly for detailed inspection of existing condition, and secondly for the repairs, wherever it may be found necessary." 4. From the report of the Architects, it is clear that the there are structural cracks in the beams due to rusting of reinforcement and such damages are required to be repaired. The 75% of the surface area of the RCC columns, beams and original ceiling could not be inspected as they appear to have been covered by the cupboards and false ceiling. In view of the structural cracks noticed in the beams due to rusting of reinforcement need repairs, it would be necessary to remove cupboards and ceiling in the light of expert opinion available on record. No fault can be found with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed in limini. No order as to costs. 5. The Registrar General is directed to remit Rs. 10,000/- towards professional charges of S + P Architects by issuing payee’s account cheque in their favour. ( 4 ) 6. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of this order. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.)