G.D. Deochekke and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corp. of Gr. Bombay & Ors.
EmailWith
Civil Appeal No. 1769/93
With
Civil Appeal No. 1769/93
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Section 105B – Municipal property – Eviction of lessee – Lease of municipal land – Lessee putting up structures on the land and inducting the appellants as tenants – Consequent to default in payment of rent, municipal corporation transferring the lease in favour of another party and taking eviction proceedings against the defaulting lessee in possession – Compromise between the parties whereby appellant agreeing to vacate the premises, agreeing to accept the alternative site offered by the municipal corporation – Appellant, however, declining the alternative site and not vacating the premises – Consequently eviction proceedings resulting in order of eviction which was upheld by the appellate court as well as High Court. Held, in view of the compromise and undertaking given by the appellant, no interference called for in the order of eviction.
1. The city survey plot no. 200 situate at Morebaug Road, Naigaun in the city of Mumbai is admittedly owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The said plot of land was originally leased out to one Shri B.R. Bhatt, who put up certain structures on the said plot of land. Subsequently, Shri Bhatt mortgaged the land as well as the structure to one Shri S.V. Joshi. Shri S.V. Joshi, the mortgagee, thereafter inducted the appellants herein as his tenants. In the meantime, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai resolved to transfer the ownership of the said plot of land in favour of Bombay Maratha Samaj and thereafter, to its assignee Naigaun Educational Society. It appears that the lessee, the mortgagee and the appellants committed default in payment of rent to the corporation and therefore, corporation took eviction proceedings against the appellants. In the said proceedings, the matter was compromised between the corporation and the appellants herein on the following terms:
(1) It is agreed that the appellants shall pay 3/4th of the amount of arrears of rent and taxes to the date of attorning them as direct tenants in one installment on receipt of intimation of accepting them as direct tenants.
(2) The appellants shall pay the balance of 1/3rd of the amount of arrears of rent and taxes in 12 equal installments along with monthly rent paid by them to present owner of the structure or as will be determined by the corporation.
(3) It was further stipulated that each appellant shall furnish indemnity bond indemnifying the corporation against any damages arising out of legal proceedings taken by the present owner of the structure against individual tenants.
(4) The appellants will have to give an undertaking in writing that they shall accept any alternative accommodation, the corporation could allot at the time of displacement.
2. It is not disputed that the appellants in lieu of the compromise filed separate undertaking that they would vacate the premises, if any alternative accommodations are offered to them.
3. Subsequently, on 23.2.83 the corporation sent a show cause notice requiring the appellants herein to vacate the premises. Since appellants did not vacate the premises, the corporation took proceedings under section 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for eviction of the appellants on the ground of public interest. The enquiry officer passed an order of eviction against the appellants. The appellants thereafter, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority and the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court also met with the same fate. It is against the said judgment, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the appellants herein had accepted the terms of compromise wherein they undertook to vacate the premises on offer of an alternative accommodation to them by the corporation. It is also not disputed that the alternative accommodations were offered to the appellants, which was within half a kilometre from the plot in dispute, to which they declined. In view of the said terms of compromise and undertaking given by the appellants, we do not find it a fit case for interference. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeals. However, we direct the corporation to give a fresh offer of any alternative accommodations to the appellants in terms of compromise dated 12.4.66. The offer shall be treated as take it or leave it basis within four months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
