09 May 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by M/s. Modern Paint And Auto Corporation and its partners, challenging a demolition notice issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) under Section 351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. While acknowledging the possibility that some structures predated the 1962 datum line, the Court found that extensive unauthorized alterations had been undertaken by the Petitioners, extending "far beyond the scope of tenantable repairs."

The Petitioners, who operate an auto workshop for M/s. Mercedes Auto Hangar, contended that their premises were a "tolerated structure" existing prior to April 1, 1962, supported by historical Cadastral Survey Tikka Sheets (1935, 1952, and 1969) and BMC Assessment Records. They argued that the BMC failed to provide a fair hearing, disregarded material evidence such as valid factory licenses, and that the notice was "jurisdictionally defective" and "motivated by an ulterior motive". Senior counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Navroz Seervai, asserted that the property had a documented history dating back to 1915 and that no substantial alterations were made except for tenantable repairs necessary for the Mercedes-Benz workshop. He also highlighted that the plan relied upon by the BMC for the notice was never presented to the Petitioners.

Conversely, Mr. Girish Godbole, senior counsel for the BMC, maintained that the notice and order were lawfully issued, citing photographs and the notice schedule as evidence of "unauthorized construction," including a mezzanine floor, and "substantial alterations" without prior permission. He stated that while the Petitioners' documents were considered, they were deemed "insufficient to justify the unauthorized alterations".

The Court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that while some original structures might have pre-existed the datum line, the Petitioners had admitted to not seeking permissions for the alterations they claimed were "tenantable repairs". The judgment explicitly stated that the construction of a mezzanine floor cannot be classified as a tenantable repair and that the undertaken work extended "far beyond the scope of tenantable repairs". The Court expressed concern that the absence of detailed records for "tolerated structures" is often exploited to construct entirely new structures under false pretenses.

While acknowledging public apprehension regarding the BMC's selective targeting of unauthorized constructions, the High Court reiterated its duty to uphold the law and not condone illegalities. The Court directed the BMC to ensure that only unauthorized constructions or extensions are removed, while any original structure or legitimate repairs remain undisturbed.

At the Petitioners' request, the implementation of the judgment has been stayed until May 26, 2025, to allow them to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Section 351, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act - 1888  

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888