-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5989 OF 2002
Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim, )
Age 60 years, Occ. Business, Dry Fish Space No. 5, Chatrapati )
Shivaji Maharaj market, Mata Ramaba Ambedkar Marg, )
Mumbai-400 001 )..Petitioner
versus
1. Head Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai,
ig )
Market Department, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market, )
Mumbai-400 001 )
2. Assistant Commissioner's office (Market), )
Mahatma Jyoti Phule Market, 1st floor, D.N. Road, )
Mumbai-400 001 ).Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 OF 2002
1. Mohammed Shafi Machhiwala )
Age 60 years, Occ. Business )
2. Mohammed Irfan Mohammed Shafi Machhiwala )
Occ. Business, both carrying on business at Dry Fish Space )
No.4, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market, )
Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400 001 ).Respondents
Mr. A.N. Mulla for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Malvankar for the respondents.
CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATE: JUNE 11, 2010.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::
-2-
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. SAVANT, J.)
These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
take exception to the orders dated 22nd August, 2002 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai and the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner (Markets) dated 9th July, 2002 and 1st August, 2002 (orally
conveyed). By the orders dated 22nd August, 2009, the appeals filed by the
petitioners abovenamed were held to be not maintainable in view of the fact
that the orders against which the appeals were filed were not appealable as they
were not passed under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,
1888, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “the said Act”.
2. The facts in a nutshell can be stated thus:-
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5989 of 2002 claims through
one Mohammed Afzal, who was allotted dry fish space stall No.5 in Chhatrapati
Shivaji Market, Mumbai. It is the case of the said petitioner that the said
Mohammed Afzal executed a naukarnama in favour of the petitioner. It is
further the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation has accepted
the petitioner as a licensee and started collecting rent from him. The petitioner
in the said petition was issued a show cause notice for arrears of rent. After
issuance of the second show cause notice, rent was collected from the petitioner
for the period April, 1996 to December, 1996. The petitioner was again issued
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::
-3-
show cause notices on 18th February, 1999 and 6th March, 1999, pursuant to
which the petitioner again paid the rent and Municipal Corporation accepted
the same. It appears thereafter on 9th July, 2002, the respondents have passed
an ex parte order and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. It is
against the said order dated 9th July, 2002 that the petitioner filed an Appeal
before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, which appeal
came to be disposed of by an order dated 22nd August, 2002 on the grounds
mentioned earlier.
4. In so far as petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5990 of 2002 are
concerned, the said petitioners claim to be licensees of the Municipal
Corporation by virtue of an oral agreement in respect of dry fish space stall No.4
in the said Chhatrapati Shivaji Market at Mumbai. It is the case of the
petitioners that the rent receipts were issued in the name of the partners of the
petitioners, who thereafter left Mumbai, as a consequence of which the
petitioners took over the business. It is the case of the petitioners that from
1985 to 1996, respondent No.1 was regularly collecting rent and passing
receipts for the same. On 3rd July, 1996, the respondents stopped collecting rent
and a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners. Pursuant to the
said show cause notice, the petitioners offered the arrears of rent which was
collected by respondent No.1 by waiving the notice. The petitioners were again
issued show cause notice on 18th February, 1999 and 6th March, 1999, pursuant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::
-4-
to which again the petitioners paid the rent which was collected by the
respondents. Again show cause notices came to be issued to the petitioners,
pursuant to which the petitioners offered the rent. However, the same was not
accepted by the respondents and ultimately on 1st August, 2002 the Rent
Collector of respondent No.1 orally ordered the petitioners to vacate the suit
premises. By their Advocate’s letter dated 5th August, 2002, petitioners offered
the rent which was refused. Ultimately, since the petitioners were asked to
vacate the premises, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the City Civil Court,
Mumbai, which came to be disposed of by the order dated 22nd August, 2002 on
the grounds mentioned earlier.
5. In so far as the order of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil
Court is concerned, the appeals filed by the two sets of petitioners have been
held to be not maintainable on the ground that the order impugned is an
administrative order and not an order passed under Section 105 B of the said
Act. The learned Principal Judge has held that the order not being passed by an
authority designated under Section 105-B, therefore, cannot be called an order
passed under the said provision. The learned Principal Judge, therefore, held
that the order against which the appeal was filed being passed by Assistant
Commissioner was only an administrative order against which no appeal could
lie before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court. In our view, considering
the reasons mentioned by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::
-5-
Mumbai, for holding that the appeals filed by the two sets of petitioners
abovenamed being not maintainable cannot be faulted with. A perusal of the
order impugned before the learned Principal Judge would show that the said
order is in the form of an administrative order. The said order does not even
refer to any provisions of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner, who passed
the said order, is not the designated authority under Section 105-B of the said
Act.
6.
The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioners in both
petitions is that they had defaulted in payment of rent as also in so far as
petitioner in Writ Petition No.5989 of 2002 is concerned, it is stated that an
unauthorised person was found to be occupying the premises in question,
without there being any naukarnama in place. Since the reason for eviction of
the petitioners was on the aforesaid grounds, in our view, it was necessary for
the Corporation to proceed against the petitioners by invoking Section 105-B of
the said Act. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the
premises of the Corporation. The eviction of the petitioners sought on the said
grounds would, therefore, entail a particular procedure to be followed wherein
the petitioners can raise their defences, if any. In our view, therefore, it would
be necessary for the Corporation to have a recourse to Section 105-B of the Act
for the eviction of the petitioners from the premises of the Corporation rather
than by way of an administrative order. As indicated above, the said action
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::
-6-
would entail a procedure to be followed wherein the petitioners can also
participate. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner (Markets) and confirm the orders passed by the learned Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in the Appeals filed by the petitioners.
However, we grant liberty to the Municipal Corporation to proceed against the
petitioners under Section 105-B of the said Act. We do not express any opinion
as regards the merits of the petitioners’ case in the above two petitions and keep
the contentions of the parties open in the matter of eviction of both the sets of
petitioners. We accordingly partly allow the writ petitions by making the Rule
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
7. By interim orders passed in both the above petitions the petitioners
were directed to pay the applicable rent to the Municipal Corporation. The said
direction would continue to operate during the pendency of the proceedings
under Section 105-B of the Act, if such proceedings are initiated against the
Petitioners.
P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.
R.M. SAVANT, J.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:00:10 :::