Allauddin Mohammed Hassan Ansari vs. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Thr Assistant Commissioner A Ward And Another

Held

The High Court held that the Trial Court did not have the benefit of the repair permission obtained via RTI application dated 27th July 2026, which the Appellant presented to establish the suit structure's existence prior to 1960. The Trial Court also did not consider the Appellant's contention regarding the structure's pre-1960 existence. Since these new documents were placed before the High Court, the issue of unauthorized construction needed to be decided by the Trial Court after considering them. The Court reasoned that a prima facie view on these documents had not been formed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the proceedings were remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration of the interim relief application, taking into account the newly submitted documents. The Trial Court was directed to form a prima facie view and pass an appropriate order within three weeks. All contentions were expressly kept open. No coercive steps were to be taken by the Respondent-Corporation for four weeks.

Facts

The Appellant, Allauddin Mohammed Hassan Ansari, challenged an order of the Bombay City Civil Court that rejected his Notice of Motion seeking to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) from taking coercive action, including demolition, against his suit structure. The MCGM had issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, alleging unauthorized conversion of toilet blocks into a godown. The Appellant contended the structure existed before 1960, had a sanctioned plan, and was not converted. The Trial Court rejected the motion, finding no sanctioned plan or permission for conversion. During the appeal, the Appellant submitted additional documents obtained via RTI, including repair permissions from 1960, suggesting the structure predated the datum line.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the Appellant's Notice of Motion without considering the newly submitted documents obtained through RTI, which allegedly establish the existence of the suit structure prior to the datum line (1960)? (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to Section 351 of the MMC Act and principles of interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of CPC). Contentions: Appellant: The Trial Court failed to consider all submitted documents, including those obtained via RTI showing repair permission in 1960, proving the structure's pre-datum existence. The structure was not an unauthorized conversion. Reliance was placed on the RTI documents and earlier rent/electricity bills. Revenue (MCGM): A mere repair permission cannot be construed as a sanction or approval under Sections 342/347 of the MMC Act. The first assessment was in 2020, contradicting the Appellant's claim of pre-1961 existence. The notice and speaking order were correctly passed based on available facts.