: 1 : caa.962.2011...sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.962 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.150 OF 2011 Gyandevi Sanjaykumar Pandey … Applicant V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent And Dr.Ness Faram Irani & Anr. .. Applicants/Interveners Mr.R.G. Megh i/b R.D. Pathak for the Appellants Ms.K.K. Soraan for the Respondent MCGM Ms.S.T. Shaikh i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Interveners CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard. The application is moved by the landlord seeking leave to intervene in the appeal filed against the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff is the tenant of the applicants. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the interests of justice, the application is allowed and the applicants are allowed to intervene. They be impleaded as the respondents in the appeal. Amendment be effected within two weeks. 2. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) : 2 : caa.962.2011...sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.963 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.151 OF 2011 Peter Cyril D'costa … Applicant V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent And Dr.Ness Faram Irani & Anr. .. Applicants/Interveners Mr.R.G. Megh i/b R.D. Pathak for the Appellants Ms.K.K. Soraan for the Respondent MCGM Ms.S.T. Shaikh i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Interveners CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard. The application is moved by the landlord seeking leave to intervene in the appeal filed against the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff is the tenant of the applicants. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the interests of justice, the application is allowed and the applicants are allowed to intervene. They be impleaded as the respondents in the appeal. Amendment be effected within two weeks. 2. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) : 3 : caa.962.2011...sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.150 OF 2011 a/w CIVIL APPLICATION NO.219 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.150 OF 2011 Gyandevi Sanjaykumar Pandey … Applicant V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent And Dr.Ness Faram Irani & Anr. .. Applicants/Interveners Mr.R.G. Megh i/b R.D. Pathak for the Appellants Ms.K.K. Soraan for the Respondent MCGM Ms.S.T. Shaikh i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Interveners CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and interveners. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against refusal of ad-interim relief by the trial Court pending notice of motion wherein the plaintiff had sought injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the disputed structure as per the order passed u/s 488. The impugned order was passed on 31.1.2011. Record reveals that earlier, the appellant had filed Appeal from Order No.746 of 2008 against refusal of ad-interim relief in the earlier Notice of Motion. That appeal was disposed of as withdrawn : 4 : caa.962.2011...sxw by this Court on 7.4.2010 as the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant on instructions from the appellant had sought to withdraw the appeal with a request that the plaintiff appellant may be allowed to continue in possession of the disputed structure upto 31.12.2010. The respondents agreed and, therefore, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with permission to the plaintiff/appellant to retain the possession of the disputed structure till 31.12.2010 on condition that the plaintiff/appellant and all adult members of his family shall file an undertaking before the Court within two weeks that they would vacate the structure within the specified period. This Court had made it clear that the Corporation would be at liberty to execute the notice for demolition immediately from 1.1.2011. In view of that order, after 1.1.2011, the Municipal Corporation is competent to demolish the structure. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant contends that the present appellant had never given instructions to his advocate to make such a statement nor she had given any undertaking before this Court to vacate the structure. In fact non-filing of the undertaking inspite of the order was a contemptuous act. The fact remains that the plaintiff was allowed to retain the disputed structure till 31.12.2010 and that period is over. Admittedly, the order passed on 7.4.2010 in Appeal from Order No.746 of 2008 was never recalled or set aside nor there was any move by : 5 : caa.962.2011...sxw the plaintiff appellant to recall that order and as such that order has become final. The Municipal Corporation has issued the notice and passed an order to demolish after that. In view of the above circumstances, the trial Court could not have granted any ad-interim relief against the demolition. 4. In view of the above circumstances, I find no illegality or mistake in the impugned order refusing at-interim relief. 5. In the result, the appeal and application stand dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) : 6 : caa.962.2011...sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.151 OF 2011 a/w CIVIL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.151 OF 2011 Peter Cyril D'costa … Applicant V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent And Dr.Ness Faram Irani & Anr. .. Applicants/Interveners Mr.R.G. Megh i/b R.D. Pathak for the Appellants Ms.K.K. Soraan for the Respondent MCGM Ms.S.T. Shaikh i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Interveners CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and interveners. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against refusal of ad-interim relief by the trial Court pending notice of motion wherein the plaintiff had sought injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the disputed structure as per the order passed u/s 488. The impugned order was passed on 31.1.2011. Record reveals that earlier, the appellant had filed Appeal from Order No.746 of 2008 against refusal of ad-interim relief in the earlier Notice of Motion. That appeal was disposed of as withdrawn : 7 : caa.962.2011...sxw by this Court on 7.4.2010 as the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant on instructions from the appellant had sought to withdraw the appeal with a request that the plaintiff appellant may be allowed to continue in possession of the disputed structure upto 31.12.2010. The respondents agreed and, therefore, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with permission to the plaintiff/appellant to retain the possession of the disputed structure till 31.12.2010 on condition that the plaintiff/appellant and all adult members of his family shall file an undertaking before the Court within two weeks that they would vacate the structure within the specified period. This Court had made it clear that the Corporation would be at liberty to execute the notice for demolition immediately from 1.1.2011. In view of that order, after 1.1.2011, the Municipal Corporation is competent to demolish the structure. 6. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant contends that the present appellant had never given instructions to his advocate to make such a statement nor he had given any undertaking before this Court to vacate the structure. In fact non-filing of the undertaking inspite of the order was a contemptuous act. The fact remains that the plaintiff was allowed to retain the disputed structure till 31.12.2010 and that period is over. Admittedly, the order passed on 7.4.2010 in Appeal from Order No.745 of 2008 was never recalled or set aside nor there was any move by : 8 : caa.962.2011...sxw the plaintiff appellant to recall that order and as such that order has become final. The Municipal Corporation has issued the notice and passed an order to demolish after that. In view of the above circumstances, the trial Court could not have granted any ad-interim relief against the demolition. 7. In view of the above circumstances, I find no illegality or mistake in the impugned order refusing at-interim relief. 8. In the result, the appeal and application stand dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)