Ramnivas L. Kothari v. Ankit Sarvesh Shah

Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the appellant Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent No.2 B.M.C. Mr.Mehta for the respondent No.3 Mr.R.D.Soni i/b. S.D.Mishra for the respondent No.5 None for the other respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009. P.C:

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated

20.2.2005 passed by the learned Juge of the City Civil Court in Long Cause Suit No.2422 of 2001, the appellant herein has filed this First Appeal.

The matter was pending for some time as some 2 action was expected on behalf of the Corporation in regard to certain structure in regard to which Suit No.2422 of 2001 came to be filed.

It was the grievance of the appellant as landlord that the activities carried out by the respondent Nos.1, 3 to 7 are illegal and that the appellant wanted Corporation to take some action in the matter. The appellant also wanted that the Corporation should take some action considering the fact that the floor below terrace is in dilapidated condition. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on merits. Hence this appeal.

Today, before this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Mehta tendered in the Court Xerox copy of the notice under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act issued to owner Ram N. Kothari and other persons who are styled as tenants. Similarly he produced notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 addressed to Shri Shetty, Shri Shah and Shri 3 Dalal. The Xerox copies being true copies of the notice are taken on record.

With the help of these three notices I have heard learned advocates on both the sides and it is seen that the purpose for which the suit came to be instituted is met with on account of issuance of the two notices as aforesaid. In view of this, now nothing survives in this First Appeal and the same has now become infructuous. Hence the Order. ORDER i. On account of issuance of two notices as mentioned aforesaid, copies of which are taken on record, the First Appeal has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. ii. In the facts of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs. iii. If appellant in his capacity as landlord has 4 right in regard to the proceeding initiated by the Corporation, covered by the aforesaid two notices, the appellant is free to exercise those rights in accordance with the provisions of law. iv. In view of the Order in the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.1392 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)