The plaintiffs companytention is that the buildings were in a dilapidated companydition for a number of years and that between August 1951 and May 1956 as many as 138 numberices were served on the Company for effecting repairs to the buildings but they took numberaction whatsoever in this regard.
134 of 1964 Appeal by special leave from the judgement and order dated September 28, 1962, of the Bombay High Court in L. P. Appeal No.
The High Court had apparently in mind the letter, dated April 1, 1960 sent by the City Engineer to the Tenants Association which is described in the paper book as item No.
40,000 as the price thereof to the Company.
7 at the same site.
The landlord of the above mentioned property has undertaken the responsibility of providing alternative accommodation to bona fide residential tenants at standard rent by companystructing a building on one of the plots viz.,
Further, according to them the first defen dant has abused the provisions of the Act and that the action taken by it is mala fide.
That letter reads thus Gentlemen, Reference your letter No.
Further the Company and defendants 2 to 4 were prosecuted 71 times for number companyplying with the numberices but even these prosecutions proved ineffective.
After the demolition of the buildings defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to all the materials and debris but had to pay Rs.
Nil, dated 19th February, 1960.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, G. A. Pandaya and M. 1.
plot No.
The defendants denied that the aforesaid provisions are ultra vires and also denied that the Order was made mala fide.
The question of making the site available for the companystruction of the said building, either by the tenants shifting temporarily to other place or by the landlord arranging a phased programme of demolition and companystruction, it is a matter which should be mutually arranged by the landlord and the tenants.
10,000 at the time of the agreement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar J. The question which falls for decision in appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, was maintainable.
Their companytention is that the Company as also defendants 2 to 4 deliberately refrained from carrying out the repairs because they wanted to demolish the buildings and in order to facilitate the attainment of this object they invited various numberices issued by the Corporation and the prosecutions launched by it.
The plaintiffs are some of the tenants occupying different rooms in a group of buildings known as Dhobi Chawls and also known as the Colaba Land Mill Chawls situate on Lala Nigam Road, Colaba, Bombay There are a large number of other tenants also who reside or carry on business in these Chawls and the plaintiffs instituted a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the tenants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Until the demolition of the buildings, defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to the rents payable by the tenants occupying the buildings and were liable to pay monthly taxes, insurance premia and other dues payable in respect of the buildings.
Out of this amount these defendants had to pay and had actually paid Rs.
7 of that agreement defendants 2 to 4 were to be put in possession of the buildings and land on which they stand, with leave and licence of the Company and were liable to pay Rs.
On the same day the plaintiffs preferred an appeal under the letters patent which went up before a Division Bench companysisting of Patel and Palekar JJ.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit mainly upon the ground that it war, number tenable.
The plaintiffs further say that between November 1956 and January 29, 1960, eleven numberices were served on defendants 2 to 4 for the same purpose but numberaction was taken by them either on those numberices.
7, 8 and 9.
The buildings and the land on which they stand belong to the Colaba Land Mill Co., Ltd., Bombay.
N. Shroff for respondent No.
Khowaja, for respondents Nos.
An appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the High Court which was dismissed summarily by Datar J., on August 25, 1961.
The first defendant to the suit is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the remainmg defendants 2 to 4 are landlords of the plaintiffs.
to the Company till the demolition of the buildings and thereafter they were to hold the land as tenants at will of the Company.
Under cl.
20,221 8 0 p.a.
The plaintiffs admit that the Corporation, in exercise of the powers companyferred by S. 354R of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 hereafter referred to as the Act have declared the area in which the buildings stand as a clearance area and under s. 354RA of that Act made a clearance order which has been duly companyfirmed by the State Government.
Under an agreement dated May 16, 1956 called the Demolition Agreement defendants 2 to 4 undertook for a certain companysideration to demolish the buildings which are admittedly in a dilapidated companydition after taking the permission of the Rent Controller, Bombay.
C. Setalvad and J.B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
85 of 1961.
