- 1 - 3425 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3425 OF 2010 Sudheer Bahl .. Applicant (M/s Khyber Hotel Corpn) vs The State of Maharashtra & anr..Respondents Ms.Veena Thadani i.b.Mr.Vishal Thadani for Petitioner Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State Ms.Seena Rawaade i.b Ms.V.K.Khatu for BMC CORAM: N.D.DESHPANDE, J DATE: 17th February,2011 P.C. 1. Heard both sides. The petitioner felt aggrieved merely because a notice came to be issued for carrying out certain repairs urgently to the building situate at Sassoon Building, 143, M.G.Road, Mumbai-400 001 under section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act which is belonging to the petitioner. He is the landlord of the - 2 - 3425 building. The petitioner himself is occupying some portion of the building and therefore, he could take immediate steps for repairs which has been already started. However regarding some portion of the building which is in possession of the tenants, they have been instructed to carry out the repairs. Some of the tenants neither carried out the repair works nor allowed the landlord to do the repair work. All tenants have been informed so also the Municipal Corporation about the present condition of the building and progress of the work done by the petitioner. Despite this the Corporation filed a regular complaint in routine, as usual in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 41st Court, Dadar (Shindewadi) Mumbai for dealing with the issue in accordance with law. Therefore petitioner impugns the present prosecution. - 3 - 3425 2. It is not disputed that the Corporation has the power to issue such notice when required, especially in matter of building repairs of old structures and those require not only immediate attention but, urgent repairs. The present building is facing north side and is located in a thickly populated commercial area. The notice is not challenged by the petitioner earlier. There is no malice or any illegality attributed to the notice. Admittedly, the building requires repairs as required which is not complete and work is in progress. The idea behind such a proceeding is to compel all concerned to do the needful as required and there is nothing illegal in the matter. 3. In every criminal case like the present one respondents or the accused or noticee as - 4 - 3425 the case may be are not required or asked to attend the court on every date of hearing. There is a provision under section 205 of Cr.P.C.1973 for granting such exemption. There is no irregularity found to continue with the proceedings. No interference therefore, is called for at this stage. Both parties should cooperate in the repairs of the building. The petitioner is at liberty to state his case in defence or of innocence before the said court dealing with the issue of legality and of validity of the impugned notice. The same may be heard by the trial court which shall proceed further in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are kept open for expeditious disposal and even for granting exemption in the matter whenever presence of the petitioner is not required. Counsel for the Corporation agreed that it shall not oppose such exemption application made when parties - 5 - 3425 are not required to attend before the court. 4. Needless to state that petitioner shall be at liberty to move the High Court whenever there is a cause of action. With these observations, Petition stands disposed of. N.D.Deshpande, J