MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI vs VIDYAVATIDEVI RAMNARAYAN SAHANI

Judgment text excerpt

ppn 1 43.fa-1807.11.doc N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by PRACHI PRACHI PRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.01.28 FIRST APPEAL NO.1807 OF 2011 16:33:42 +0530 The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Having their office at Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ….Appellant (Original Defendant) V/s. Vidyavatidevi Ramnarayan Sahani Age 55 years, an adult, Indian inhabitant of Bombay, Having structure situated at CTS No.950 (pt.), Near Link Road, Dahisar (West), Mumbai – 68. .…Respondent (Original Plaintiff) ---- Ms. Pallavi Khale i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Appellant-MCGM. Mr. J. G. Kadam i/by Mr. B.P. Shukla for the Respondent. ---- CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 27 January 2026 Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Corporation challenging the order dated 8 December 2009 passed by the City Civil Court whereby notice dated 4 February 2008 under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘the Act’) was quashed and set aside. 2. The only issue which arises for my consideration is whether the City Civil Court was justified in quashing the notice under Section 354A of the Act? 3. The respondent is in occupation and possession of a structure situated at CTS No.950. It is the case of the respondent that she had ppn 2 43.fa-1807.11.doc initiated the work of plastering of walls of the suit structure. The appellant- Corporation issued a notice under Section 354A of the Act on 4 February 2008 directing the respondent to stop the repairing work. The respondent replied to the said notice on 4 February 2008 itself. In the said reply, the respondent denied that the work of plastering falls within the purview of Section 354A of the Act. The responden