MP -1- WP5782-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5782 OF 2010 Mr. Parasnis K. Balkrishna .. Petitioner Versus Smt. Mangala M. Rangole and others .. Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Godbole with Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2011 P. C. : In the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27th April 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for declaration and injunction under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner who is a tenant of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the structure situated in the ground floor has filed a suit claiming therein that the notice issued by the defendant No. 1 Municipal Council for demolition of the structure, on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition is illegal. It is a basic contention of the petitioner that the said notice is issued in collusion with the respondents landlords. 3. In the written statement filed by the respondents landlords, they have stated that the plaintiff desires to remove the upper two floors and use only the ground floor for his bonafide requirement. The application, therefore, came to be filed with the prayer that the plaintiff MP -2- WP5782-10 be directed to remove upper two floors and put a tin-shed on the first floor, or in the alternative, if the respondents landlords do not do so then the plaintiff be granted permission to do so and recover the cost from the landlords. The same application is rejected. Hence the present petition. 4. Shri Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent landlord himself has stated that he wants to demolish the upper two floors, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent if the application was allowed. Shri Godbole, on the contrary, submits that the relief claimed was much beyond the scope of the suit itself. 5. Learned Trial Court while rejecting the application has found that if the application as filed by the plaintiff was allowed, it would amount to reconstructing the entire premises and as such it would also amount to changing the nature of the premises. The learned Trial Court has further observed that the earlier application of the plaintiff- petitioner for carrying out necessary repairs to stop leakage was already allowed. 6. The scope of interference under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Unless it is found that the discretionary power exercised by the Trial Court has been exercised in perverse manner, it will not be permissible for this court to interfere with the same. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order to warrant interference. Hence rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)