Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED AND SAHJADA SALIM MOHAMMED ABDUL AZIZ SHAIKHversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The notice under Section 351 relates to a structure distinct from the appellant's premises, so protection cannot be granted.
Summary
The appellant, a tenant of a ground‑floor tenement in Abubakar Estate, Dharavi, challenged the trial court's order rejecting his notice of motion seeking protection against demolition of an alleged unauthorized structure. The municipal corporation had issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act against an unauthorized construction located at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, which the appellant claimed was his premises. The trial court observed that the documents, including rent receipts, clearly identified the appellant's premises as distinct from the location mentioned in the notice, and that no boundary documents linked the two sites. On appeal, the High Court affirmed that the notice pertained to a different structure and that granting protection would be inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act applies to the appellant's premises.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to protection against demolition of the structure mentioned in the notice.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act — s. 351
Subjects
- unauthorized construction
- municipal notice
- Section 351
- tenancy
- demolition protection
- municipal corporation
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
QUTBUDDIN PATHAN
PATHAN Date:
2026.06.25 65-AO-400-2024.doc
12:50:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.400 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9126 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.400 OF 2024
Mohammed @ Sahajada Salim
Mohammed Abdul Aziz Shaikh
an adult, aged about 53 years,
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, …Appellant
Occupation-Business, residing at, Applicant
Room No.61, 60 Feet Cross Road,
(Org. Plainti=)
AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
Nagar Chowk, Opposite CST Station,
Fort, Mumbai-400 001
2. Assistant Commissioner,
Through Designated OAcer,
G/N Ward, Dadar (W), ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 028 (Org. Defendants)
——————
Mr. J. D. Mishra a/w Mr. Jitendra Shukla for the Appellant/Applicant
Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondents-Corporation
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JUNE 22, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 6 th
May 2024 by which the Notice of Motion No. 1102 of 2024 came to be
SQ Pathan 1/4
65-AO-400-2024.doc
rejected. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, noted that it is not
speciGcally pleaded by the Plainti=s that the suit premises, including
the notice structure, is situated at 41/42, Abubakar Estate, Dharavi
Cross Road, Mumbai-17, nor have they placed on record any document
showing the boundary line between Abubakar Chawl and AKG Nagar,
Dharavi, Mumbai. It further noted the inspection report of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation dated 22nd December 2023 by which the oAcers
of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation noticed an unauthorized
construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi,
Mumbai. The documents produced on record, as well as the pleadings
in the plaint showed that the suit premises were situated at 41/42,
Abubakar Estate, Dharavi Cross Road, Mumbai-17 and in view of the
said position, the Trial Court held that the Plainti= may be a tenant of
the suit premises situated at Abubakar Estate, Dharavi, Cross Road,
Mumbai. However, the notice is in respect of an unauthorized
construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi,
Mumbai-17, which is di=erent from the address mentioned in the rent
receipts.
2. Before this Court, the contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the Plainti= is that, though the notice under Section 351
of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act refers to an unauthorized
construction at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, there is an
SQ Pathan 2/4
65-AO-400-2024.doc
apprehension on the part of the Plainti= that the Plainti='s premises,
which are situated within Abubakar Chawl, will be demolished by the
Corporation. He would further point out the documents produced
before the Trial Court in order to demonstrate that the Plainti= is a
tenant in respect of Ground Floor Tenement No. 61 in a property
situated at Abubakar Estate, Mumbai-17.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would
submit that the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act has been issued in respect of an unauthorized
construction of a ground Ioor structure with the help of brick masonry
walls and an AC sheet roof, situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar,
Dharavi, Mumbai. He would further submit that, as the documents are
in respect of premises at Abubakar Estate, Dharavi Chawl, which is not
the same as the notice structure, the Trial Court has refused to grant
any protection.
4. From a perusal of the documents produced on record by the
Plainti= to demonstrate the existence of the structure prior to the
datum line, it is evident that the rent receipts are in respect of Ground
Floor Tenement No. 61 in a property situated at 41/42, Dharavi,
Abubakar Estate, Mumbai-17. The notice issued is in respect of an
unauthorized construction situated at AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai, at
60 Feet Cross Road. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the documents
SQ Pathan 3/4
65-AO-400-2024.doc
produced by the Plainti= show the Plainti= as a tenant of the suit
premises which is di=erent from the notice structure. As the notice
under Section 351 has been issued in respect of a speciGc unauthorized
construction, any action taken would necessarily be in respect of the
unauthorized construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar,
Dharavi, Mumbai-28, and not in respect of the Plainti='s premises
stated to be situated in a chawl known as Abubakar Chawl. As the
notice structure is di=erent from the Plainti='s premises, as evident
from the material placed on record, the Notice of Motion has been
rightly rejected, as grant of protection would amount to protecting a
structure which is di=erent from the notice structure.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal from Order.
The same stands dismissed.
6. Needless to clarify that any action taken by the Corporation
would be only in respect of the structure which is the subject matter of
the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
7. The Interim Application does not survive for consideration. The
same stands disposed of.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
SQ Pathan 4/4
Checking your session…